< April 13 April 15 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 14[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 delete. Sango123 (e) 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Tennyson[edit]

This is about what seems as a non-notable author. I only found a few pages with this person mentioned on Google. Unless it is notable it should be deleted and possibly added to List of novelists from the United States. --Mason 00:15, 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 Merged with United Nations Space Command.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flash clone[edit]

Halo-cruft, too little background info.--Zxcvbnm 00:20, 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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Royboycrashfan 14:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mwaluganje elephant sanctuary[edit]

Non-notable--Zxcvbnm 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I didn't really think it through before nominating it, I'll give a better reason next time I nominate something.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diclonius[edit]

Delete

Keep

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Will (E@) T 05:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of portable applications[edit]

Keep[edit]

Please note the difference between lists of internal links versus lists of external links. AlistairMcMillan 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken :), but given the utility of this list and the lack of alternatives on the Net I do not wish to change my vote. --cdjaco 17:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[edit]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links... AlistairMcMillan 00:53, 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 the subject of the article. Mailer Diablo 04:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bixel[edit]

A puff piece on a non-notable porn star; no reason to include this article on Wikipedia. Harro5 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Not an original copyvio though. Looks like the copyvio section was pasted in with this diff on April 7 [2]. Should be reverted back to the earlier diff. -- JJay 21:50, 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 Deleted Make Love & redirected Make Love (song) to Human After All.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make Love (song)[edit]

The article is a redudant of an already existing article (Make Love). However, I don't even know if the original is good enough to be considered encyclopedic. It was never a released single and I don't think anymore information can be provided about the song. I don't know if the original should also be considered for deletion. Douglasr007 01:00, 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 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]

  • 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]
  • 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween: Awakening[edit]

An article on an unofficial video game someone made and hosts on Geocities. WP:NOT a free host, blog, or webspace provider. Harro5 01:04, 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 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanide and happiness (webcomic)[edit]

nn webcomic with 144 unique google hits. The article also is not POV. If we were to strip out the POV stuff, it would have no useful content. Where (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Or just one that calls for interpretation; that some of those hits reference requests for site voting is illustrative. (By the bye, has anyone actually looked at this disgusting, lame, stickfigure "comic?" A recommendation: don't.) RGTraynor 15:26, 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 result, relisting individually upon requests. Melchoir 19:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anry Nemo, Blackeri, Bri-chan, Daniel Conway, Pu-sama, and Ssilence[edit]

Non-notable artists. These are the remaining artist articles from Category:DeviantART whose notability is confined to similar websites, after Suzi9mm was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzi9mm. None of the six makes any claim to notability beyond deviantART or occasionally GFXartist, and they are all built around deep external links. Wikipedia is not a website indexing service. Melchoir 01:19, 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 01:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Power[edit]

Page appears to have been created by a vandal. No such NHL player exists. Aottley 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 Merged and deleted  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reach (Planet)[edit]

Halo-cruft--Zxcvbnm 00:35, 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) 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario 2 recipes[edit]

Transwikied to Transwiki:Paper_Mario_2_recipes, not needed in Wikipedia.--Zxcvbnm 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that requires a previous AfD with a transwiki result. Melchoir 02:11, 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 03:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lawson[edit]

Eponymous subject is non-notable, probably also fits vanity classification. MarcoTolo 02:13, 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 keep. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landofvenus[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. Was prodded, contested by article creator. ...Scott5114 03:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were they using a different account earlier? The only edit I see is this one. Melchoir 05:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(^does anyone find it strange that the first edit made by this new user

is this one?) Melchoir: yes, I have a feeling that venuscam and 12.201.105.50 could be one and the same. Sfacets


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 02:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy_Tepfer[edit]

Vanity article created by a close relation--notice the username. rehpotsirhc 03:41, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Synesthesia (Buck 65)[edit]

Sounds like a review and even says so on the discussion page. It says it's supposed to be edited soon, but the last (and only) edit was about a week and a half into August. Nameneko 06:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten it to conform to Wikistandards for album pages. --TM (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Dan Quayle. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Figueroa[edit]

Best known for something that happen 13 years ago and was notable for a day, person not notable now Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparatly he dropped out of high school at age 16 and now works in a Wal-Mart with 3 kids, goggle says --Jaranda wat's sup 04:16, 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. — FireFox • T [11:33, 14 April 2006]

Streamate Web Cams Technology to Revolutionize Online Dating[edit]

Some kind of spam press release. rehpotsirhc 04:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to Gaining Trust Online - Webcams Are Your Answer Cedders 11:00, 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 04:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metalheads Worldwide[edit]

Spam/Advertisement. rehpotsirhc 04:39, 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 04:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enntha[edit]

Protologism. Attempted PROD; author removed tag. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:42, 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 Withdrawn Kotepho 15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3ware[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:NEO, WP:V

Neologism. Google gives no indication that this is actually being used as a synonym of "third party hardware". Sandstein 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn after being rewritten about the hardware company. Sandstein 06:07, 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 04:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aether Wave Theory[edit]

Delete this is clear original research, as admitted on the only page linked from the article. This was prod'ed but the prod was removed without comment. Gwernol 04:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Roche, Sudbury[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurentian University Model Parliament and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUPSA Presidents.

WP:VAIN. rehpotsirhc 05:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That's not the function of Wikipedia. Fishhead64 07:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ...and there are many places in the world wide web where this would be appropriate. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fan1967 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you're unclear as to what Wikipedia is, Mr. Roche. It's not an indiscriminate blog or bulletin board, but a private encyclopedia with rules to assure that articles meet a minimum standard of notability; I strongly recommend you look at WP:BIO for those guidelines applicable to this situation, under which you not only fail to be notable, but do so in spectacular fashion. That being said, what Wikipedia is likewise not about is as a feelgood vehicle for residents of the city of Sudbury or your university. Speedy Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Response: Yes, you may be correct that Wikipedia is not "a feelgood vehicle for residents of the city of Sudbury or your university" but.... ideally it could be.kroche14
Comment No ideally it won't be. Wikipedia is not a free for all or for general webhosting. It is an encyclopedia. Please read WP:NOT and WP:N and then if you still think this article should stay pursuant to those pages, get back to us. JoshuaZ 19:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to strengthen my vote for delete on this one if that was possible. As the author/subject of the article your seeming complete lack of understanding or respect (I'm not sure witch) for the basics listed in WP:NOT is not helping your case. Tomb Ride My Talk 16:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Despite the vanity of this particular article, the quality of this author's work on Judith Woodsworth suggests to me that he would be valuable to Wikipedia as a contibutor on an ongoing basis. Fan1967 19:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a solid article about a notable subject, well-written and sourced, and I commend the person who penned it -- it's a word-for-word copyvio from the president's bio on the Laurentian University website. [4] That being said, I've also listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUPSA Presidents as being even more of a vanity article than Roche's original one; this isn't merely an article about himself, it's an article about the presidency of the political science club he holds. RGTraynor 20:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Silly me. I just assumed he had written it. Pretty blatant copy, too. Fan1967 20:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Certainly Judith Woodsworth is notable enough for an article, were one to be rewritten so as not to be a copyvio from the LU website. RGTraynor 08:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.53.1.107 (talk • contribs) .


Strong Delete Rand Dyck, Judith Woodsworth, and The Laurentian Model Parliament are wonderful articles (the parts of them which doesnt violate copyright), since they are all notable people and events, but the President elect of a Student Organization is not notable enought to warrent a article. This is simply a case of vanity and self promotion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.51.47.41 (talk • contribs) .


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

Please delete this page. I am Kevin Roche, I do not wish to have this as a permanent record on the internet. Please delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.232.53 (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2009 (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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unda K9[edit]

WP:VAIN, WP:NN -- notice username. rehpotsirhc 05:12, 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 delete. Sango123 (e) 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ivy Show[edit]

Delete - Show isn't in producton yet, the external link is to a one page website, looks like adcruft. "The Ivy Show" gets 120 hits on google, but even then, 5 are for wikipedia, some are for an equestrian event, and others still are for a stage show consisting of Ivy League comedians. So trying a search of "The Ivy Show" and Iacono (the "star" of the upcoming sitcom), yields a grand total of 6, all but one on wikipedia, the last on tools.wikimedia.de. In addition, the related articles (Steve paskay, Edward Meyer, Jill Kimmel, Ivy Iacono, Horrorween, Chuck Lamb, Antonio Gonzalez, Jr.), also made by the same editor(s) could probably also be candidates for deletion, but I'll let someone with more patience than me scroll through those and list them if they want. Nobunaga24 05:13, 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 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawood Hamid[edit]

Unverifiable. Non notable. Seems like a hoax, because I cross checked several times, but could not find any bollywood actor with either of the names mentioned in the article. soUmyaSch 05:11, 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 merge. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling a Scotty[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Was prodded when called "Pulling a Scottie, but tag pulled with the comment character name is "Scotty" and you get many more links if you search for "Pulling a Scotty". True: 3,650 for "Pulling a Scotty". 'But, if you exclude "NASA" and "captainsquartersblog" (the two refs given), you discover 162 hits: meaning almost all its Google hits stem from two sources. Calton | Talk 05:16, 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 01:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Hill[edit]

Spam for non-notable jewelery designer. Was prodded, but tag removed, so here we are. Calton | Talk 05:17, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Heilbrunn[edit]

Non-notable "art director and musician". Fails WP:MUSIC, fails to specify what albums he was art director for, and gets 8 Googles hits. Was prodded, but tag removed. Calton | Talk 05:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information is still being gathered. ((Unsigned|68.9.42.202| 21:55, 14
Some art directions projects have been added to WikiPedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.42.202 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 April 2006
This article falls under the fowllowing criteria for Notable musicians:
Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.42.202 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 April 2006
It has been clarified that this article does in fact meet WP:Music criteria, which could avoid deletion. Please post if any additional information and sources are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.42.202 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 15 April 2006 and previous
Alex was a major part of the Boston music scene when he lived in Boston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.42.202 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 April 2006
Such a major part that he managed to escape attention entirely. Why would that be? Or do you have evidence to the contrary? --Calton | Talk 23:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that all "evidence" exists online so it's difficult to make that sort of a judgement in regards to an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.232.53 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 21 April 2006
And since the evidence of Heilbrunn's very existence is paltry and you haven't provided a shred of proof otherwise, I'd say it's very easy to make that sort of a judgement in regards to an article failing WP:VERIFY by such a wide margin.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nanyang Supermarket[edit]

An ethnic-foods supermarket chain "primarily located in Springvale Australia". No sign of anything resembling notablility, even size, other than "[i]t is a common spot for gathering of local youth and a site for buddhist monk donations". Calton | Talk 05:22, 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 01:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saber K9[edit]

The articles claims this to be the first dog in the US to be part of a hospital's staff exclusively. I don't think this is sufficient as a claim of notability, so I vote delete, but I'm not confident it's a speedy candidate. gadfium 05:31, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wopanese[edit]

Delete - the references I find to this all are somebody's user name on blogs, etc., and the creator of this article, guess what his username is? Nobunaga24 05:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I would say merge, but in the links from google, all 600 or so, it is someone's username on blogs and forums, and it's some guy from Virginia. The article says its used in ths mid-Atlantic. I don't even think it's an established racial slur, just what some guy labeled himself. --Nobunaga24 06:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Okay, yeah, this is just a vanity entry it seems. Tomb Ride My Talk 06:12, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Sun[edit]

Will probably be notable someday but fails now per WP:BIO :) rehpotsirhc 05:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only extremely rarely are someone's accomplishments or interests "unprecedented". Mak (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, and a response to both: first, with regard to the rules on notability, I think this article qualifies in one important respect: it mentions amateur sports (and indeed, amateur sports players are fairly well represented on wikipedia). Now, calling high school math and science competitions "sports" might seem a bit of a stretch, but I can assure you that there is a significant culture (by a conservative estimate, upwards of 50,000 students each year) that considers them to be just this. Sure, we can't include every minor bit player in these kinds of competitions (like we would with the NBA), but considering that he is a dominant figure for this year (certainly in the top 5 overall, and best overall by most measures), I think it is reasonable to have an article about the best competitor from the class of 2006 in this enormous field.

And yes, I think the label of unprecedented is generally thrown around too sloppily. However, many of these competitions haven't been around for very long, and I can say that qualifying for 4 math/science olympiad camps (and all 5 olympiads, although that is not mentioned in the article) is in fact unprecendented. slightlyconfused1 06:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict Comment this article would fare far better if it had sources for such assertions. In fact, if you could find some news coverage for these competitions it would be great. Mak (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to mention that there is precedent for this: Tiankai Liu was placed on wikipedia (and has had a page for some time) with accomplishments of similar overall magnitude. slightlyconfused1 06:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit too tired to come up with a huge array of references at this point, but (to answer your request at least slightly), I'll note that searching for "Yi Sun" right now on google news provides 107 hits, basically all of which seem to refer to him (this is mainly with the STS contest, which is most recent and preeminent). slightlyconfused1 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I get 134,000 hits referencing many different Yi Suns. I found one reference, but it still falls short of WP:BIO. rehpotsirhc 06:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answering Saforrest's comment, I'd refer again to the page on Tiankai Liu, which has been around for some time and was created at a time when he had individual accomplishments of similar magnitude. More currently, however, there is the article on Michael Viscardi, a current high school senior whose only "claim to fame" is in science and math contests, and who isn't as accomplished as Yi Sun.

EivindFOyangen, yes, the definition of "Gold Medal" is very different in math/science international olympiads from its meaning in the conventional olympics: it is set to be given to a specific fraction (although a small one) of the international competitors, who are already a fairly select group. And it's important to remember that he isn't notable merely because he won an International Physics Olympiad gold medal - it's because, first, he did it as a sophomore (which hasn't happened in the recent history of the US team, and possibly never), and more importantly, because he has been at the top in so many other competitions.

UsaSatsui, I'm not sure what you won in high school level competitions, but I think the basic principle here should be this: this general "area" is certainly not notable for us to start creating hundreds (or even dozens) of bio articles on its best students. However, I think that it is entirely reasonable to create articles on the *one* or *two* best individuals each year. And if we're willing to do that, this definitely qualifies.

Note: by "best individuals" I implicitly mean "best individuals in English-speaking countries." While there can certainly be articles on extremely, extremely accomplished individuals from across the world, there can't possibly be an "equal standard" of notability on English wikipedia - there are plenty of articles on Congressmen in America, MPs in Britain, etc., but there aren't nearly as many on, say, Duma members in Russia. slightlyconfused1 04:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning has two distinct (and equally important) steps. First, I think that math and science competitions in high school are notable enough that the dominant *one* or *two* performers (across the full spectrum of contests) at any given time merit wikipedia articles. Second, I'm asserting that Yi Sun is, in fact, the dominant competitor in this year. I'd be interested in knowing where disagreements with this inclusion lie: is it the first or the second? Does this area so completely lack any notability that the dominant performer for a year doesn't merit inclusion? Or is he not, in fact, the dominant performer? I think that once we clear this up, we can get at the heart of the disagreement. slightlyconfused1 05:18, 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 02:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bechir turki[edit]

Delete. Fails WP:PROFTEST. Fails WP:GT: [5] -AED 06:21, 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 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Ducks,The Atomic Ducks[edit]

Does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC requirements Milkshake227 06:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Milkshake227 is just doing this to spite me. Atomic Duck![reply]

this is a real band, they are local in Salt Lake City they do meet the WP:MUSIC requirements, * Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network.

For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists: They were on Radio from Hell (X96, in salt lake city) once a month radio from hell features a local band and they were featured!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ska-revival (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belka and strelka[edit]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. AED 06:26, 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 02:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Deal (band)[edit]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Fails WP:GT with "Big Deal" + band members. AED 06:33, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disenfranchised grief[edit]

Delete as original research; POV essay; apparent soapbox for author's web site (same name as link to reference). MCB 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. Kusma (討論) 13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling[edit]

This is more of a joke than an article. It also is uncited. Haschel47 06:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad english "the improvement of" = "improving" Delete forthwith 82.38.97.206 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)mikeL[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 15:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Club (club)[edit]

Delete. Not verifiable. -AED 06:50, 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 03:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletpig[edit]

Delete. NN; fails WP:GT: [8] AED 06:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PENIS WRINKLES

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; but Wikipedia is certinaly not a dictionary, so I have transwikied it to Wiktionary. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anabasii[edit]

Non-Notable Neologism, dicdef. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. TerrorIsland 07:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. not a neologism.--blue520 07:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you don't dispute that it is non-notable and dicdef? Or that keeping it makes wikipedia junkyard. I apologize for calling it a neologism, I ought to have said "anachronism". TerrorIsland 07:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Keep How about slight but not greatly notable, more than a dicdef but not by much and wikipedia is not a junkyard but deleting this will have no effect on junkyard status.--blue520 08:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am new to wikipedia, how does a weak keep differ from a regular keep? Does it weigh less in the discussion? I know that this isn't a place to vote, according to the description of VfD, but even if it were, I don't know what a weak vote is. TerrorIsland 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article does a great job explaining the meaning and etymology of the word! TerrorIsland, why do you think it's junk? It looks good to me, even if it is kind of a neologism/anachronism. Besides, we're always looking for new articles, and this one fits the bill! Jimpartame 12:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear-cut dicdef, a foreign-language one at that, and no we're not short of articles! Fishhead64 15:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a foreign-language word. It's a word in English which is derived from the Greek word αναβασις. I'm not sure what you mean when you say we're not short of articles; there are clearly many subjects Wikipedia does not yet cover adequately. Jimpartame 15:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete from here. There are zero articles in English on the Internet (according to Google) which use this term, except for Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well-sourced, non-dicdef, certainly no neologism as the nom initially alleged. I'm frankly taken aback at this article's nomination. RGTraynor 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a neologism? Then kindly explain where it is used in the English language, since there are zero Google hits to it. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here here. TerrorIsland 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While this might come as a shock to some people, the English language not only was invented some time before Google was, but it's even evolved a few times since. RGTraynor 08:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • While this might come as a shock to some people, English dictionaries tend to include words that are in the English language. And there are many, many, many English dictionaries on the Internet. And yet apparently not a single one of them has ever heard of this "word". User:Zoe|(talk) 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Cyclopaedia, or Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences obviously has. Did you read the anabasii article? It mentions this stuff. Jimpartame 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I most certainly did. Thanks for assuming good faith. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I apologize if I offended you; I'm still learning how this place works. But if you did read the article, why would you say that no English dictionaries have heard of anabasii? Jimpartame 23:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A neologism is something new. That's what "neologism" means. This is an old thing, so it isn't a neologism. Jimpartame 01:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is, nonetheless, a dicdef. Fishhead64 05:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm pretty sure "dicdef" means "dictionary definition." Are you using it to mean something else? I'm new here. Jimpartame 05:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh no I am a neologism! Jimpartame 05:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, you're a newbie.  :) Welcome, by the way. Yes, dicdef is dictionary definition, which means that at best it belongs at Wiktionary, our sister project. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proof: This word in an English dictionary from 1728, showing that it's a real word and not a neologism Jimpartame 22:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone given good reason to think this isn't a dicdef without the potential to be expanded? Terror Island 07:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I did a little research. The article states that it was originally based on material from the 1728 Cyclopaedia, but it seems it did not make use of all the relevant material from that source. The Cyclopaedia's entry, which I assume you have all read by now, has the note "See COURIER, and POST," which seems to have been ignored. These entries are vital to understanding the context of "Couriers who travel'd on Horseback, or in Chariots." Our article would be much improved by incorporating that information, as well as other sources on the historic role of postal dispatch messengers. (Wikipedia has some broad information on this topic already, but here we want to focus particularly on the role of the anabasii.) Mention should also be made of the four classes of couriers traditionally distinguished in antiquity, two of which are covered by "anabasii." The Cyclopaedia entries: Anabasii, Courier, and Post. The Cyclopaedia is only a starting point, but it should be obvious that our article as it stands has not even exhausted that starting point yet. So, no, this is not an article with no possibility of expansion. Does that answer your question? Jimpartame 10:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A minor correction: since the Post entry is split up over two pages, this part is relevant too. It's where the four kinds of couriers are mentioned. By the way, the Cyclopaedia's stated source on that is a treatise by Louis Hornigk, but the title isn't given. Does anyone here know what that treatise was called? If this article doesn't get deleted, it would be worth looking into that. Jimpartame 10:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's more than a dicdef and appears to be a real and notable group of people. --Rory096(block) 16:32, 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 Speedy Deleted (A-7 - person with no assertation of notability) by User:Jinian. -- Saberwyn 23:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C6 (graffiti artist)[edit]

Delete. Notability not established. AED 07:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. CSD A7, group (person?) that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.--blue520 07:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously Speedy delete. Tagged. Grandmasterka 11:11, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin engel[edit]

Delete. Notability not established. Possible self-promotion: article created by User:DontBeScene. Engel has website of same name. AED 07:18, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keppel MRT Station[edit]

Unverifiable original research. There is nothing on this proposed MRT station at the website of Singapore's Land Transport Authority. Google for Keppel MRT Station turns up only this article. [9] Delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 07:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (I'd have prodded this had the toolserver not been down.)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Deletedby User:Jinian (A-7, person with no assertation of notability). -- Saberwyn 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl McKinney[edit]

Delete. Vanity. Possibly userfy to the article's creator, User:Kommando797. -AED 07:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7, nn-bio, fails WP:BIO. --lightdarkness (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. CSD A7 --blue520 07:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7, vanity. --Terence Ong 10:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7 userfy and marked as such. Alba 12:09, 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 keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are X and I claim my five pounds[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository for articles about relatively infrequent internet snowclones occurring occaisionally on usenet. Basically, non-notable neo-phrasism, and this sort of thing is the gateway article to a mountain of new articles, with variables in their names. Maybe if the article were about the original phrase, with a note that it has spawned many snowclone usages, but for crying out loud, Wikipedia is not your clubhouse. TerrorIsland 07:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into List of snowclones. Doesn't seem notable enough on its own to merit an article. --Hyperbole 07:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the phrase is used widely throughout British culture, and needs explanation. N.b. user's only "contributions" to Wikipedia are to flag three articles for deletion. --ajn (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't realize Ad Hominem Attacks were a legitmate portion of discussion. Might I ask what bearing my contribution history has on whether or not this very article is in any way notable enough to be its own article? The google search on "You are * and I claim my five pounds" gets a paltry 614 hits. not that that's definitive proof, but for comparison, "I for one welcome our new * overlords" gets 113,000 hits. And it doesn't have its own page.TerrorIsland 12:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable here (see WP:NPA), but the Wikipedia:Deletion policy says that arguments/votes from new users may be given less weight or no weight. Some deletion debates prompt a flood of votes from people who are interested in the topic but who don't know Wikipedia policies and disregard them in voting. When your only contributions are delete tags, rather than editing researched facts and citations into articles, it's reasonable to note this. Barno 13:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi: I'm a new user here myself. I found this discussion because I was voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anabasii, which is from the same guy. I didn't realize that arguments and votes from new users don't count. Does that mean I shouldn't have bothered voting to keep the anabasii article (and probably this one, since it looks good to me)? I thought new users were allowed to participate everywhere on Wikipedia. Jimpartame 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I think I messed up the threading on these comments. Jimpartame 14:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The part about them being deletions, then, is irrelevant. It is about my new-ness as a user. So, really, the comment should have been, "User is new, disregard his comments without considering them on their merits"? is that official wikipolicy? TerrorIsland 14:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not exactly like that. There is no official Wikipedia policy to ignore votes from new users. What is meant here is a guideline to give less weight to votes from new users, with little or no actual reasoning or explanation. Your comments on this AfD debate are well-written and reasonable. Therefore I don't think they will be automatically ignored just because you're new. What the guideline is meant for is to ignore votes that only consist of "Don't delete! This is a cool phrase!", and to ignore votes that appear to have been written by the same person with multiple user accounts. JIP | Talk 14:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: JIP is correct. We don't treat new users' contributions here as zero-value. I apologize if my note explaining ajm's posting made TerrorIsland or Jiumpartame think otherwise. If you have facts that are relevant under WP policies, please do tell us those facts and cite sources where they can be verified. If you are merely making assertions without factual backing or ones that don't help determine whether the article meets Wikipedia policies, the administrator who closes the AfD debate will usually give less weight to a new user's words (if apparently well-intended), or give no weight to it (if suspected of being intended for self-promotion or feuding or otherwise not to improve the encyclopedia). Remember also that AfD is a discussion seeking consensus, not a vote. Barno 22:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reply If this is really a forum for discussion, I am surprised at the number of people who indicated their position as a vote, rather than trying to discuss the matter. Very few people have responded to my contention that a catchphrase, even if popular in variation (like a snow clone) gets an article for the phrase itself, not the template with a variable in it. I don't understand why, if this isn't just voting, very few people are discussing the things I said, and instead list a vote followed by some positive feature, like, "notable". TerrorIsland 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're confusing ad hominem and personal attack. A reply can be ad hominem without seeming like a vicious personal attack. Any response to a challenge that weighs the qualities of the person levying the charge instead of the merits of the charge itself is an argument ad hominem (against the man) rather than against the claim itself. TerrorIsland 14:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, historical phenomenon as well as usenet stuff, and the article links to Lobby Lud which gives more detail on the origin. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, merge and redirect to Lobby Lud. Alba 12:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are a deletionist and I claim my five euros. Keep, this is a notable phrase. I had seen it in many places before, but this Wikipedia article was the first place where I found out where it originally came from. JIP | Talk 13:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as we can call me a name before deciding to keep the article, I suppose all is well. I am not a deletionist, unless by that you mean someone who thinks that there are some articles which should be deleted. Because then, sure I am. Phrases of that form get 614 google hits. Can anyone tell me where all of theses uses are that mysteriosly don't come up on google searches? Also, why is this article about the phrasal template and not about the origin phrase, which is how all other snowclones are listed?TerrorIsland 13:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have struck out my comment as it was not serious, I just wanted a chance to use this phrase. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was a huge fan of Amiga computers and games. I read many British Amiga magazines regularly, and thus became more familiar with British culture than most Finns of my age. I noticed that several magazines contained this phrase, but I had no idea what it meant or where it had come from. Then I found it on Wikipedia and it explained it to me. These mentions obviously do not show up on Google as it does not yet search through printed material. So that explains why I think it is notable. JIP | Talk 14:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doesn't it seem odd to you that most catchphrase articles are about the original catchphrase, rather than having a variable in their name? Shouldn't the article actually be "You Are Lobby Lud and I claim my five pounds?" Or merged in to the Lobby Lud, article at least? I still think its not notable enough, but I am confused why people who do think the content is notable enough think the article should be kept rather than merged, moved or redirected. Also, I apologize for misinterpreting the tone of your initial vote. Sometimes its hard to tell when people are kidding on the internet. TerrorIsland 14:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge and redirect at Lobby Lud, and retain on List of snowclones as well. Mysterious catchphrases need explanations. Smerdis of Tlön 14:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ajn. JimTS 14:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if this article hadn't linked to Lobby Lud, I never would have known to start the Kolley Kibber article! Jimpartame 15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Lobby Lud.--Isotope23 15:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep usenet with 5000 hits from all over the place 494 unique googles Kotepho 15:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Just to be objective here, I counted six hits on the "unique googles" link presented above and its following page that were not about this meme. JIP | Talk 16:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Smerdis. Fishhead64 15:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops (my comment did not make sense, I have removed it). TerrorIsland 22:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 16:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is well-known and I like the link to Lobby Lud. The whole thing was parodied in the otherwise rather-stodgy Agatha Christie's Poirot TV series. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable expression. --Billpg 19:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The expression in the title is not notable. In fact, it is either not a complete expression, or it accuses someone of being the letter 'X'. I think you mean the expression "You are Lobby Lud and I claim my five pounds" is notable. Perhaps you then think the article should be moved to either the main Lobby Lud article or to the actually famous phrase? TerrorIsland 22:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The X is a placeholder, replaced with the person, organisation, etc being compared against. If the presence of the X is objectionable, I would have no objection to renaming this to "And I claim my five pounds". --Billpg 01:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not like I'm confused about what the "X" is supposed to be doing. I'm saying that its not how we have this sort of article named, usually. TerrorIsland 02:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd be happy to discuss renaming if this article survives deletion, but for now, my vote remains. --Billpg 13:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable unless some good, verifiable source citations are provided. What needs to be verified is not the content of the article Lobby Lud, but the assertion that this has become a common internet meme/snowclone. A catchphrase that is widely used in general does not need a special article to point out that it is also used on the Internet. I have no doubt that people have used the phrase "Close, but no cigar" on the Internet too. Presently the article contains only two references, both to personal websites. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Lobby Lud. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 03:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most other people have voted to keep, and by Wikipedia policy, the consensus is what's important. Jimpartame 04:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I think its good that you're giving a reason, I'm not sure that's the best reason to keep an article. TerrorIsland 10:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't Wikipedia policy the best reason? This is Wikipedia, so Wikipedia policy is what matters. Jimpartame 11:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The presence of a consensus is not as important as whether the actual WP policies are met. The discussion is seeking consensus about whether the facts show that those policies are met. A consensus of non-policy "votes" doesn't override the policy. You have the process backward. Barno 19:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The presence of a consensus *is* meeting "actual WP policies." Those are not two separate things. See Wikipedia:Deletion process. Jimpartame 20:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I once saw a Usenet posting to the effect of "You are a soulless automaton sent by Skynet to destroy us all... and I claim my five pounds", to which the response was "As you vish. *pound pound pound pound splat* ... oops." Keep. DS 21:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's pretty funny, and a good illustration of why we need the article. Jimpartame 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has historical and internet significance. Other phrases with much less usage are included, and for non-UK persons especially this can be helpful to remain.SidP 21:35, 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) 16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catasha Kin[edit]

Delete. Notability not verifiable. Possible self-promotion: article created by User:Catasha13. AED 07:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn-bio, vanity, self promotion possible userfy. --Terence Ong 10:14, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chantel McCormick[edit]

Delete. NN, possible self-promotion: article created by User:Chantelmccormick. -AED 07:48, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobfoc[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. Davodd 07:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, Delete per nom. This is more Urban Dictionary's speed, and it's already there. -Colin Kimbrell 20:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 05:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete.--Adam (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children of leviathan[edit]

  • Delete. Another MySpace band that fails WP:MUSIC. AED 08:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate MySpace. Even though I have one =( --Mboverload 08:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cosign with Mboverload ;) Danny Lilithborne 08:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn band, self promotion, vanity and lastly it fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 10:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7 Band and marked as such. Alba 12:12, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason and Kristopher Simmons[edit]

Not notable child actors from a known tv show but with no significant role. 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 08:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Tone 08:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looking at episode summaries, they seem to have a notable role, with whole episodes revolving around them during which they play an active part. -- Kjkolb 12:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The episodes may be centered around them but they actually don't do much themselves. --Tone 15:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People don't have to be talented or flamboyant actors to deserve a bio, they just have to be notable, and these kids seem to have a decent number of credits. Should probably be split into separate pages, though. -Colin Kimbrell 20:15, 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 delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cali and Noelle Sheldon[edit]

Not notable child actresses from a soap opera and with a really small appearance in Friends. 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 08:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--Tone 08:08, 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 03:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca and Vanessa Rogers[edit]

Not notable child actresses from a tv show. 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 08:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--Tone 08:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any babies whose acting history consists of playing babies. Come on, it's not like there's actual talent involved. Fan1967 20:01, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alena and Gabrielle LeBerger[edit]

Not notable child actresses from a tv show. 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 08:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--Tone 08:12, 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 Redirected by Shijaz.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India Coffee House[edit]

This article is basically an advert with a hint at significance that it doesn't substantiate. It has been requested for cleanup for over 4 months and the creator is not registered. Suggest Delete Tim Fellows 08:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real assertion of notability. Use ((prod)), no-one would have noticed (if it's available again...) Grandmasterka 09:17, 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 Userfied and speedy deleted A5 by User:Fang Aili. -- Saberwyn 23:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luckyvietman[edit]

This is a not notable article Marco ✉ 08:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - looks like misplaced user page --Nobunaga24 11:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Alba 12:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then speedy A5 as repeat material. Alba 21:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as well. Be bold.  RasputinAXP  c 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an user page exactly like this already. Marco ✉ 19:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I userfied and deleted it. But I'm a new admin and don't know how to close AfDs. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 21:28, 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.

Sky point[edit]

Non notable musician, looks like a poorly written test page. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 08:35, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odell Residence Hall, Lewis & Clark College[edit]

A student residence hall in a college is not inherently significant enough to merit its own Wikipedia article, and this article does not assert that Odell Residence Hall is particularly notable as residence halls go. See also the precedent North Hall. Delete Goobergunch|? 09:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. By overwhelming precedent, college residence halls are not inherently notable. Grandmasterka 10:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, domitries are nn. --Terence Ong 10:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reshalls aren't inherently notable.  RasputinAXP  c 15:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Grandmasterka.--Isotope23 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. SorryGuy 23:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or use as basis for an article on the UnI's residence halls. -- JJay 12:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete. Current content is an outstanding illustration of why dorm articles are a bad idea. There's no encyclopedic value here, and it would require major babysitting to keep the unverifiable junk out, like this kid here who wants to sound cool: In addition to being an excellent player at disc golf, Chris is also a superior beer-bong taker...setting what is assumed to be a Lewis & Clark College record with one and a half gulps.. Publish a dorm newspaper if you want, kids, but don't put this stuff in the encylopedia. Friday (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, res. is nn, article is cruft-magnet Deizio 12:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:30, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Specials on CBC[edit]

Pointless list of what CBC will be showing over Christmas 2006: so non-notable. For previous discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CBS Kids where consesnsus was to renominate separate list articles. I vote to delete. Cje 09:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no use in it. --Tone 09:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless, nn, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 10:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cje. -- Kjkolb 12:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bige1977 17:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced, Crystal Ball -- it's doubtful the CBC would have announced its Christmas schedule this early ... and the fact this isn't an actual official schedule is proven by the absence of the 2006 Doctor Who Christmas Special which the CBC is co-producing. 23skidoo 06:47, 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 (already exists in WT). Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gynotikolobomassophile[edit]

I'd love to keep this, but unless we can find instances in books of "ones who like to nibble on a woman's earlobes" then there's not much chance this deserves an entry. It makes me think though, what would the term be for "someone who enjoys having their earlobe nibbled by a woman"? Dangherous 09:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Me, for one. But I wouldn't even transwiki it; this strikes me as a neologism at best. Delete. RGTraynor 16:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wow... --RayaruB 12:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. JIP | Talk 13:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is already in Wiktionary, as is gynotikolobomassophilia. I'm not at all convinced the term wasn't made up by some bored people with an English–Greek dictionary. Lists of paraphilias used to do regular rounds on usenet, and I'm sure people added all kinds of things. It's not quite clear where the double ss comes from; from the verb masasthai (to chew) I'd expect a single s; massein (to knead) would give ss but would refer to a different irresistible urge. But my classic Greek is a bit rusty and I may be mistaken. If this belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, it should be in Paraphilia#List of paraphilias. LambiamTalk 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To my knowledge, this word exists solely for trivia competitions and sesquipedalian efforts. Confusing Manifestation 03:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was one of Wiktionary's first ever entries
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf clap[edit]

Looks OK, but I'm sure there's something wrong. Maybe a redirect to golf or clap is in order. Or out-and-out deletion Dangherous 09:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and transwiki —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a bit more than dicdef now. Doesn't belong at golf as it's not actually a golf phenomenon and clap is a disambiguation page. Please reevaluate. --4.231.242.24 23:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a very important article.
  • Keep. Let's try building wikipedia up instead of tearing it down, ok plz? Liu Bei 23:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Keep it. It is a slang term. I found it very useful.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gadji[edit]

"A gyosy word for a non-gitana. We are not a slang dictionary, and I'm not sure whether Wikt will want this. Dangherous 09:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --RayaruB 12:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a well-known term in folklore and linguistic circles as pertaining to Rom (although gadjo or gadje is more accurate), but even so it's a dicdef. RGTraynor 16:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per RGTraynor. SorryGuy 05:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frabjous[edit]

A nonce term, even if the nonce is Lewis Carrol. Dangherous 09:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jabberwocky, where frabjous is listed in the glossary section. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jabberwocky per Squiddy, but also transwiki to Wiktionary if it doesn't already exist. Alba 12:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and transwiki as per Alba. And thanks for making me smile with the phrasing of the nomination. Robin Johnson 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a frabjous day for a Redirect. Callooh! Callay! I'm positively beamish, which also needs the same redirect, as it's just a one-liner. Fan1967 15:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and transwiki as per Alba. SorryGuy 05:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and transwiki per Alba. TH 06:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankified[edit]

Misspelt, and unencyclopediaic. I'm sure there's a nice redirect I could do, but I can't find the right place for it, so delete Dangherous 09:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Culture of France. --RayaruB 12:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culture of France was what I was going to redirect to, but it doesn't seem right somehow. --Dangherous 13:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)s[reply]
  • Comment. Though it's not a word, we have an article on Francization. If any, that would be the place to redirect. ×Meegs 15:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Francization. SorryGuy 05:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Specials on YTV[edit]

Pointless list of what YTV will be showing over Christmas 2006: so non-notable. For previous discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CBS Kids where consesnsus was to renominate separate list articles. I vote to delete. Cje 09:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. RayaruB 12:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cje. -- Kjkolb 12:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bige1977 17:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cort5433 20:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and for the same reasons given for the CBC article. Unsourced and Crystal Ball, and it's unlikely YTV would have announced its Christmas 2006 schedule in April. 23skidoo 06:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOKOMS[edit]

Not notable Internet acronym Dangherous 09:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --RayaruB 12:48, 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 Both articles deleted  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YESSIR and Skeet, Isle of Man[edit]

Seemingly obscure Internet thing, and Manx slang, not warranting IMHO of an entry Dangherous 09:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Smerge the Manx part into Manx English - delete the rest. Grutness...wha? 10:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete as above. This same user seems to have create a whole bunch of these pointless acronym articles, all of them should go. --RayaruB 12:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete as above, and BTW, it's spelled "jasså", not "yassoo". JIP | Talk 13:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with Skeet, Isle of Man for the same reasons. --Dangherous 20:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Skeet to wiktionary. My Manx dictionary (published 1835) gives Skeet as meaning "a creeping, sneaking fellow". Delete YESSIR. David | Talk 20:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't suppose your Manx dictionary has a definition of it as "news", does it? That's what Wiktionary says. --Dangherous 12:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Manx for 'news' in the sense of what's in the newspaper is "Naight". Latest news is "Naight S'Jerree". Skeet does not mean news in Manx. David | Talk 14:18, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YKWWBRN[edit]

Not an acronym dictionary Dangherous 09:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not only that, but that acronym is non-notable. --RayaruB 12:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't imagine this acronym would ever be used. JIP | Talk 13:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "an acronym all programmers learn to dread" Funny, I've been a programmer over 25 years and I've never heard of this. Fan1967 15:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cort5433 20:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN WTF! WWJD? GMAFB! Roodog2k 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wynen[edit]

Recently failed a Wiktionary Requests for Validation, the link I can't for the life of me find. Dangherous 10:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If someone can find it, we can speedy A5 for deleted content. Until then, just delete. Alba 12:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as above. RayaruB 12:52, 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: Speedily deleted, empty (just a paraphrase of the title), already on Wiktionary. - Mike Rosoft 16:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reniform[edit]

All there is is "shaped like a kidney", and Wiktionary has an entry already. Dangherous 10:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --RayaruB 12:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as dicdef already in Wiktionary; tagged it.  RasputinAXP  c 15:30, 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 Already redirected and merged  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Kerala[edit]

This article just contains list of a few people and doesnt make any sense. Kerala is a state in India and you simply cant put the names of all the people in an encyclopedia article!!

Shijaz 10:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This sort of thing is great for a category, not so great as a list because it is too general and unmaintainable. Grandmasterka 11:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I put [[ ]]'s round the names, and it turns out three already have articles. We have a List of people from Texas, so why not Kerala? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Terence Ong 11:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Could be useful, although a category would probably be better. --RayaruB 12:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify. I myself created Category:People from Helsinki, this could be changed to a similar category. JIP | Talk 13:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify per JIP. This is where we go into the song and dance of "categories already serve the purpose that lists don't."  RasputinAXP  c 15:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Duplication) An article named List of famous Keralites already exists and the article in question (above) is just a small subset of this article.Shijaz 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what content will take it with List of famous Keralites per Shijaz, delete the rest. I agree on the face of it that we have lists of notables from every damned political subdivision on the map. RGTraynor 16:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of famous Keralites, keep the redirect. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE. Merged and Redirected. Some entries weren't there on the destination page, so I opened a discussion there asking someone to add details on those few people.
  • Keep Good list. Hawkestone 06:29, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waggish Golf[edit]

It is basically advertising a resort Maniacgeorge 11:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like it's already gone. --RayaruB 12:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in that case, as advertising. --RayaruB 15:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed heading to link to article. Kotepho 15:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable self-promotion. -Colin Kimbrell 20:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete.--Adam (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily cuprate[edit]

Apart from lack of plausibility and citation, the chunk starting 'It was at this time that Emily began work on her obscure volume, the Emilina Cuprum' has just been lifted (with a name changes) from the Aleister Crowley article. Google gets nothing to support this, either. Delete Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7. This unreferenced article does not assert notability, in my view. Tagged. PJM 11:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7 this appears to be viral marketing for a band in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Alba 12:25, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cantwell[edit]

Alan Cantwell is a self-published author of conspiracy theory books, is occasionally published in New Dawn (which publishes fringe theories), and back in the 1980s he published a few articles in the medical press, but under 30 publications is certainly not indicative of a significant research career. So he fails the professor test, is a self-published author (so fails the author test) but might be a valid subject as a conspiracy theorist. The no. 1 Google hit is whale.to (now vaccination.org.uk), User:Whaleto's vehement;ly anti-vaccination website, and some at least of the supposed publications are reproduced (with or without permission) on that site. Article was created by Whaleto, who also added (per his usual practice) links to his site. I would say that this is "just another crank" and not an especially notable one, but I could be wrong. Just to clarify per RayaruB below, the books on Amazon are published by Aries Rising Press; from their website: Aries Rising Press, Los Angeles. was founded in 1984 by Alan Cantwell, M.D., for the purpose of disseminating vital medical research and knowledge concerning the origin and cause of two major diseases; Cancer and AIDS. The site lists no books by any other author. These are self-published books. There are notable self-published authors, like Robert Gunther, but he is notable as the founder of the museum of science at Oxford and the driving force behind the rehabilitation of [Robert Hooke]]'s reputation, not as a self-published author. Just zis Guy you know? 11:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a good point. However, even though they are self-published, I think the fact that several major bookstores stock them indicates that they may have an audience of 5,000 or more, which would satisfy the notability standard for people. I'd still be inclined not to delete. --RayaruB 15:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say "stock". I'd say "list in their catalogue - unless I saw a definite indication they were on a shelf, or in a warehouse. The Long Tail in selling books was something that Amazon made a lot from, and bricks and mortar shops are catching up on, and just in time ordering and fulfilment is one of the otehr innovations that has altered the meaning of a note that soemthing is _available_ from a book seller. Midgley 12:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He may be a "crank" but he has five books selling at Amazon with numerous reviews [10]. There are also some google scholar references [11]- in fact, almost as many as some widely loved political movements here [12]. We may not like his ideas but I can't see any reason to delete this. -- JJay 15:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, JJay, those are self-published books. Anyone can get a book listed on Amazon, and anyone can write a book review on Amazon, or even multiple reviews to astroturf something. Just zis Guy you know? 16:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you did say that. And had Mr. Cantwell's books just been sold by some unknown website I might vote delete here. But they are sold by major booksellers. And I see Cantwell quoted in the press on AIDs or being referenced in other books [13]. Your argument regarding self-publishing is also fairly unconvincing given the vast number of articles here that use self-published papers, blog articles and chat board posts as valid references. You should know this, because you are involved in editing some of these articles. Finally, I again note that Mr. Cantwell gets 18 hits in google scholar [14], while Dominionism gets 32 [15]. Dominionism currently benefits from an article here, a number of categories, a template and some lists. You yourself have argued that dominionism is backed up by scholarly references. Therefore, I'm sure you'll agree, that Cantwell clearly deserves an article here. Call it the dominionism test. -- JJay 17:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. Seems rather notable. --Terence Ong 15:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per jjay. Seems a bit nuts, but a notable nut. Tomb Ride My Talk 16:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. john 16:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (article creator, user Whaleto))[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. The self-published author thing is a guideline, not a set of handcuffs. If someone actually cracks the Amazon sales ranks with several books, I don't give a rat's patootie whether the publishing company is something he founded himself. RGTraynor 16:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is it indicated how many of the books have sold? Amazon indicate they have to order half of them (2-3w), are they being printed to order? If another article is using self-published stuff and own website as a reference then there is a problem with that article, it doesn't mean it is OK for other ones. He doesn't look notable to me, but I've learned not to trust the articles out of that author to include what people are notable for, so it may be worth doing some actual research. It isn't an article that would take any length of time to replace though, is it, with a WP:BIO or whatever. Midgley 18:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a best-seller, or indeed one you are likely to find without an effort. Nor notable on that behalf. Delete Midgley 12:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as JJay mentioned above which may have been overlooked, Cantwell is mentioned in other books. Amazon lists 15+; after selecting the drop-down "Books" for the search, and searching on "alan cantwell jr" you then click on "Click here to see additional results." Or follow the link for the Google Book search above. Шизомби 21:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on notability + Weak Keep. This guy seems notable ("Alan Cantwell" "AIDS" = 32,000 hits). Clearly as mad as a bicycle, but notable. Just to clarify- having one's books listed on Amazon DOES NOT make one notable in itself. ANYONE with a chequebook can get a book into the Amazon catalogue- they have deals with numerous vanity press outfits. They may be a major bookseller, but they are not a discerning one. PS- Barring exceptional cases (like, for example, this one), almost any article that's using blogs, chat boards, and self-published papers (ie not peer-reviewed) as references is suspect. PPS- I don't know what Dominionism is either ;-) Badgerpatrol 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see sufficient evidence of him being notable in the article. I would want to see notable sources writing about him (not just his writings). Personally, I think a self-published book, is little better then a personal web site. It doesn't mean you're not notable, but it doesn't mean you are. The evidence of notability, needs to go in the actual article (as opposed to this AFD page). Without citing reliable sources that have been written about him in-depth, we can't really say anything neutral and reliable about him, as a person is not a neutral reliable source about themself. Currently, the article mentions no criticisms of his views. Now, that's not because there isn't criticism of these types of views. It's because nobody (worthy of citing) seems to know or care enough about him to bother directly addressing his views. So the article will never present all major perspectives fairly. But if the article is improved, I'll be happy to be proved wrong, and change my vote. --Rob 02:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Ombudsman 14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra MRT Station[edit]

Original research, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The LTA hasn't proposed this station on its website. 0 original Google hits besides Wikipedia. [16] Delete Terence Ong 12:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless someone can verify it. --RayaruB 13:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RayaruB. Montco 15:33, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anti mascot project[edit]

This project has no claim to notability and it only gets 31 original search results, when searching for "anti mascot project" in quotes. See the last page of results to see how many original results it has. -- Kjkolb 12:10, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelekta[edit]

Don't see notability per WP:CORP Dijxtra 12:34, 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, content moved to talk:mat (language) for possible salvage. `'mikka (t) 20:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Хуй[edit]

An AFD header was added to this article, but no nomination made, so I'm listing it here.

I had moved this page from Hui (Хуй) where it had been previously nominated by User:Melaen; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hui (Хуй)--My another account 18:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I'm voting: merge and redirect into Mat (language); the Russian language has a rich repertoire of profanity only rivalled by the English language. -- Karada 13:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rivalled? You must be kidding. English has a single profanity. The rest is joke. `'mikka (t) 19:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been transwikied to Wiktionary:Хуй and its talk page there. --Dangherous 13:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. Non-English dicdef and title. `'mikka (t) 01:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete But Move. --Watslaw 14:07 17 April 2006 (UTC) —the preceding comment is by 217.170.221.110
  • Merge with Mat. Stassats 12:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave this wonderful article! Miroslav 16:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC) —the preceding comment is by 80.255.64.253[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold mine (slang)[edit]

I've killed the 2 incoming links to this, transwikied the definition to Wiktionary, so now this is just an orphaned page needing deletion Dangherous 13:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Dicdef.--Zxcvbnm 14:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not merge into Gold mine as a separate section? I'm not too hung up on this, so it's ok to delete too. Luigizanasi 19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gold mine per above. "Popular usage" section maybe? -- Saberwyn 23:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to gold mine as per above. SorryGuy 00:10, 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 redirect to Theni. --bainer (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theni district[edit]

No context, no links, no sources... hard to say just what this is about. Eron 14:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, created by the same editor [17] at the same time as his/her only edits, for the same reasons:

Eron 14:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: the page was a copyvio of [18], and it effectively duplicates Theni, so I have turned it into a redirect (merging not an option, since it was a copyvio) and closed this debate. --bainer (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Strogg in Quake 4[edit]

IMO: not encyclopaedic. Reads like it came straight out of a game manual, and no attempt is made at an "out of game world" perspective. Interesting only to players of the game. Been tagged for claenup for December 2005, Wikification since January 2006, and yet it is still a mess. I know there are other articles like this, and I will seek them out for deletion too, so please do not use that as a "keep" reason. Batmanand | Talk 14:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: just because it's only interesting to players of the game doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. And yes, I am going to use the fact that there are other good articles like this for a reason.--Zxcvbnm 14:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: These are minor characters and could be integrated into the main article. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. --ReptileLawyer 15:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this means your vote is to merge? --Oldak Quill 22:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While they are minor characters, this is a large list, which is exactly the provision given in the above guideline for information having its own page. --InShaneee 18:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge as the other voters seem to be recommending. --InShaneee 19:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The list is not as large as some others, and could easily be integrated into Quake 4.--Zxcvbnm 19:34, 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 Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest cities[edit]

I submit that the information in this article is fundamentally unverifyable - people may claim that particular cities are "the oldest" etc etc, which is fine for that city's page, but with the scarcity of evidence, I don't believe that we should have a page containing a list, with dates, that definitively states which cities are the oldest. --Si42 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While there may be some cases where priority is contested, this is in fact verifiable by archaeology. See also the discussion at civilization. Smerdis of Tlön 14:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much some cases of dispute as ALL the cases (look at the first few on the list - they are not as bad as they were, but all the first 3 claimed different things), the archeology involved is far from an exact science, certainly nowhere near good enough for a pseudo-definitive List! All we're going to end up with is a bunch of patriotic, almost nationalistic debate from citizens of India, China and the countries of the Levant - where pride is derived from the apparent status - complete codswallop. --Si42 15:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not inherently NPOV, unverifiable (although this article clears needs some sourcing), and definitely notable. A move to List of oldest cities might be in order, though. Batmanand | Talk 15:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see I'm going to lose this. Shouldn't we at least have a note on the page pointing out how these ages are widely open to interpretation, and that interpretation is usually used by interested parties to further their own ends (see pages for Jericho, Damascus, Arbil, Hebron etc etc --Si42 16:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, however I somewhat agree with the last comment by the nominator. Many of these cities haven't been constantly populated or were small settlements etc. The article should probably include note of this. Tomb Ride My Talk 16:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs some retooling and a new name, however. youngamerican (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I had kind of hoped for one person to agree with me, but since that hasn't happened yet, I may as well start working towards doing what I can to improve the page.--Si42 17:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Keep, but can someome please write an introductory paragraph explaining the criteria (e.g. continous occupation, evidence of earliest occupation etc.) I'm not sure about the use of the word city either, it hints at a size or population requirment. Markb 19:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is consensus here (I still think the page is unverifyable but it seems I am alone) and some major changes have been made to the article, I am proposing that we close the nomination, I will leave the "requires sources" tag on until I manage to sort out the sources for the list (I got the ages from various Wiki articles - it's far from perfect but it's better than it was. --Si42 13:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and possibly change name You can verify the information with sources.... why not? A better name may be List of oldest cities or something. Roodog2k 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I already changed the name and am trying to verify the sources where posssible. Thanks for your input. --Si42 00:39, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Reeves (Michigan)[edit]

pioneer who settled in Michigan, supposedly responsible for naming the town Hell, Michigan as a joke. That story is told in the Hell, Michigan article, the rest of the bio seems fairly average for a settler of the time and thus not worthy of specific extra attention Thatcher131 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Could also redirect to Hell, Michigan I guess, but the chances of someone searching for "George Reeves (Michigan)" are pretty slim I would think.--Isotope23 14:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikify, and cleanup: founder of a town. Smerdis of Tlön 14:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hell, Michigan and don't merge, the Hell article contains all the info we need about this nn person. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send it straight to Hell as per Zoe. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Non-notable Gardar Rurak 11:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must agree with Grutness...wha? send it straight to Hell per User:Zoe|(talk)--Tollwutig 16:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Zoe. SorryGuy 05:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Wrestling Website[edit]

Non-notable website, written UE.--Zxcvbnm 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (Notorious4life 22:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nominator --M2K e 22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. SorryGuy 00:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete No reason to delete. (preceding unsigned comment by article's author Bufo35 08:43, 17 April 2006 UTC)
    • Comment: User's fourth edit. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a link repository Maustrauser 10:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete One of the oldest and more popular wrestling websites around, certainly notable amongst fans. --MikeMetaled 11:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete There is no logical reason to delete. It is a notable site. Hell, the forum alone documents the decline of wrestling and lack of fan interest, as half the forum is comprised of former wrestling fans who don't even watch wrestling anymore, yet converge together just to shoot the shit. --Whatwouldkevindo 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: User's second edit. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete It has only been known recently that forum members can add on to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalyx triaD (talk • contribs) 12:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment: User's seventh edit. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete One of the more interesting phenomena on the internet - a wrestling site which doesn't care about wrestling. Definitely notable. --Troywins
    • Comment: User's second edit. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Otherwise I'll get Dave Wadding to sit on you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.216.41 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment: Recommendations from IPs are rarely counted. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete due to sock flood and WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have semi-protected this page due to vandalism from IP addresses. However, any admin can feel free to unsprotect at any time without reference to me. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, there's way too much of this self promotion going on. I've already listed two similar examples of this in the last few days. Englishrose 18:04, 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 User:Stifle. Kotepho 16:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spinebuster (band)[edit]

Article is about a band, but doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Possible vanity.
↪Lakes (Talk) 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, nn band with no assertions of notability.  RasputinAXP  c 15:28, 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 deleted. — FireFox • T [17:43, 14 April 2006]

User:McGill.phys.459[edit]

I used this page for personal notes (for my undergraduate thesis), planning to delete the account afterwards. I was unaware that accounts could not be deleted. Once this page is deleted, I will go about renaming or reassigning my Username.- McGill.phys.459 14:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as author requested deletion.  RasputinAXP  c 15:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment userpages go on WP:MFD but in this case ((db-author)) or such works just fine. Kotepho 15:31, 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 Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remote viewing data connects to religious scriptures[edit]

This article was nominated once before here, where it was determined that it should be merged with Remote Viewing in a much more edited form and then deleted. I have created a "Uses" section in the remote viewing article with a one line statement saying how remote viewing has been used for different purposes, including validating religious scriptures. This can obviously be expanded in the future, and I see no point in keeping the article nominated here around anymore. Joshdboz 14:41, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep Kotepho 17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson_Center,_Pennsylvania[edit]

nn JimTS 15:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy keep - since when do we start deleting cities and towns? Montco 15:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - There are towns with less than ten people, with articles. When you propose a policy change about towns, have it accepted, and then delete the hundreds of articles on wikipedia about towns smaller than this one, then we'll consider it. But until then, all towns are notable (although many of them don't have the impact on so many people's lives like <cough> schools do <cough>.) Alright, I'm off my soapbox. Grandmasterka 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, all real towns are notable, this is a town with about >200 which is definitely notable. --Terence Ong 16:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is a standard article about a small town. Tomb Ride My Talk 16:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, per everyone else above.--Isotope23 16:34, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiankai Liu[edit]

This article does not meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Delete.--Isotope23 15:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed Delete as Non notable. Montco 15:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 16:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. rehpotsirhc 16:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly a very accomplished guy who will probably be notable someday, but not yet. --Saforrest 17:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. SorryGuy 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Okay, my citing of Tiankai Liu appears to have had unintended consequences. I just want to highlight the same principle that I have maintained in the other discussion (on Yi Sun's page): first, although math/science academics and contests at the high school and undergraduate level aren't so notable that we should be creating dozens and dozens of articles on them, I think that it is reasonable to have articles on the top one or two of each graduating year (and if you disagree, please let me know!). Considering the combined magnitude of Tiankai's accomplishments, it's clear that he falls into this category: he was a Putnam fellow this year (top 5 of all North American undergradutes, extraordinarily prestigious), and among other accomplishments in high school, he won a gold medal at the International Mathematical Olympiad his freshman year in high school. A gold medal in the IMO freshman year is absurdly rare, and the other two Americans in my memory who have achieved this, Reid Barton and Gabriel Carroll, both have well-established wikipedia articles. The only year of high school Tiankai didn't get a gold medal in the IMO was his junior year, when he attended the Research Science Institute instead.

Moreover, this article doesn't even mention what is perhaps Tiankai's most incredible accomplishment: at the International Olympiad in Informatics, he won a special prize (the only such special prize given that year, and one of the only ones ever) for an incredible solution he provided to one of the problems: his program, dreamed up on the spot, was much faster than the "model" program created by the judges of the competition, computer science experts with far more time to think about the problem. I think that this, which I can add to the article once we resolve this dispute (or before, if consensus is that I should), certainly makes Tiankai notable enough - in addition to his other accomplishments - to be featured on wikipedia. He is one of the few brightest young stars in the math/informatics world right now. slightlyconfused1 04:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd love to understand why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Penn_State_Nittany_Lions_football_team should be an article but people think we should delete Reid Barton, Gabriel Carroll, Tiankai Liu, et al. Rewarding mediocrity?

Incidentally, Gabriel Carroll dominated ARML for the four years he was in high school. His junior year was the only year he came up short of first place -- incredibly because the 8th grader from his team turned in the correct answer to the tiebreaker question twice as fast as him. That 8th grader? Tiankai Liu. A year later they would both be taking home gold medals from the IMO. 128.103.11.166 15:57, 14 October 2007 (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 delete. Mailer Diablo 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LADL[edit]

Contested prod. It's a group of high schoolers who likes to play cards? Google brings me their website: The Official LADL Website 3.0. Their site has like no information, but the group seems pretty non-notable to me. Not for things made up in school, difficult to verify (even if you accept their website, it has less info than our article). Delete. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like a prank page. If not a prank then vanity and not noteworthy. Ande B 17:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes, Delete per Ande B, then shovel in the Magic and Pokemon cards over the mounds. RGTraynor 20:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd've speedied this if it didn't already have an AFD tag on it. Delete for sure; speedy if possible. Bearcat 03:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably speedyable. -Colin Kimbrell 20:21, 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. — FireFox (υ|τ) 09:30, 23 April 2006

Annie Travolta[edit]

Most of her few minor film and TV roles seem to be in productions starring or connected to her brother John Travolta (through his business partner producer Linda Favila [19]). Arniep 15:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just because she's in movies because of her brother doesn't mean she hasn't been in notable films.
    • Being in notable films doesn't necessarily make you a notable actor. Her roles were very minor (Checker, Bank Teller, Cashier, Hostage, Pizza Girl, Wedding Party guest). I don't think that qualifies as notable enough for an encyclopedia. Arniep 02:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Aint no Travolta that matters but John Travolta. All others should be deleted because they all hangers on and shadow riders. Aint no love. EraserX 15:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this user has only edited articles regarding people with the last name Travolta. Seems like a sock. -- Zanimum 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user Special:Contributions/EraserX seems to be believe that John Travolta is the only person with the name Travolta notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it is not clear who you are suggesting that they are a sockpuppet of. Arniep 00:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of her roles border on the extra level. Are we going to have articles on all people who only have roles as minor as Checker, Bank Teller, Cashier, Hostage, Pizza Girl, Wedding Party guest mainly due to the production starring their sibling or their business partner? Surely if she was really notable she would be able to get parts without these connections? Arniep 02:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arniep, lots of major actors let their relatives have minor roles. This does not make the relatives notable. JoshuaZ 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Travolta family. Well-established consensus is that non-notable relatives of notable people go in the notable person's article. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have no idea why every member of the travolta family has an article. This really stinks of a PR exercise. About as notable as the millions of jobbing and perpetually out of work actors out there. - Hahnchen 00:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were created by Special:Contributions/Paramountpr and it's sockpuppets as an attempt to get Rikki Lee Travolta's name repeated multiple times. Arniep 00:57, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Affairs Gaming[edit]

The game only had 50 players at its peak and most of the Google results for the "Current Affairs Gaming" appear to be irrelevant, like "current affairs, gaming". -- Kjkolb 15:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can this nomination be relisted? If it is, I suggest adding it early in the day, which starts at about 6 PM in the Pacific Timezone. -- Kjkolb 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why? Stifle (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Things listed early get more votes. -- Kjkolb 00:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above as a wholly nn site/game. -- Kicking222 14:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Travolta[edit]

Few minor film roles mostly in films starring brother John Travolta or directed by or starring brother Joey Travolta. Arniep 15:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not the most famous member of the family, but still notable. Paramountpr 17:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in small parts in a few movies that your brothers are starring in or directing doesn't make yourself notable enough for an encyclopedia. Please also note the above user has very few edits mostly to Travolta articles Special:Contributions/Paramountpr. Arniep 20:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom--Zxcvbnm 21:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being related to other celebrities does not neccessarily make one notable; it may help in notability, but it can not be the only standard. If you eliminate Sam Travolta's relationship to the more notable members of the Travolta family, his personal achievements do not warrant an entry at this juncture. Perhaps with further source citation a different opinion could be rendered. At this juncture, though, he must be deemed not notable. Cokenotpepsi 13:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Aint no Travolta that matters but John Travolta. All others should be deleted because they all hangers on and shadow riders. Aint no love. EraserX 15:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this user has only edited articles regarding people with the last name Travolta. Seems like a sock. -- Zanimum 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this user is a sock puppet of anybody Special:Contributions/EraserX. They just seem to believe that only John Travolta is notable enough for an encyclopedia article in the Travolta family which seems a perfectly reasonable opinion. Arniep 00:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, minor actor with a reasonable list of credits. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if he was really notable he would be able to get parts not in movies starring or directed by his brothers? Arniep 02:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Let's try to keep a lid on these types of articles. Madman 16:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Travolta family. -- Visviva 16:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Minor actor playing peripheral parts. - Hahnchen 00:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There really isn't much information on Sam Travolta out there. I couldn't even find a birthdate on him. There are really only four members of the Travolta family that appear to have any individual fame or notability: John, Rikki Lee, Ellen, and Joey. Others only have claim to notability based on relationship to those four, or for the most part to John. I don't see Sam having notability to warrant an article. I tried to look for sources that list his name on the internet and couldn't come up with much. I would suggest Merge into Travolta Family, but again outside of the four individuals, the family may not be notable enough for a page itself. KingJamesCav 11:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, nn-bio - User:Zoe|(talk) 17:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Germain[edit]

Delete This is one of several articles created about individuals who simply seem to be students at Laurentian_University with no notions of notability. I would nominate for speedy deletion but user:kroche14 who created many of the articles seems to desire debate on them. Tomb Ride My Talk 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clearly fails to meet the WP:BIO guidelines. Sliggy 16:36, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matchday[edit]

not notable enough Etamura 15:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep very notable retro game, a classic. Eivindt@c 19:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom -Bottesini 00:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, notability and verifiability are a bit shaky though. Stifle (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EivindFOyangen. One quick bit of evidence of its notability: this review of its re-release in 1990. --Pak21 17:01, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irise[edit]

Non-notable software company and is also linkspam Alabamaboy 15:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was speedy deleted two times: Once for copyright violations and then for being nonnotable and linkspam. I have restored the article after the creating editor contested the claim of lack of notability. However, according to Google [20] only 22 websites link to iRise's webpage and, as the article states, only 75 companies use the product. --Alabamaboy 15:55, 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 Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 18:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnlounge[edit]

obvious vanity page Etamura 16:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is NOT a vanity page.

It discusses BOTH positive and negative sides of the burnlounge program.

It is a valid topic to have in the wiki. If itunes has an entry (and it does!), then Burnlounge certainly qualifies to have an entry.

Further, I created the page and I AM NOT a burnlounge retailer. It isn't selling anything. If you don't like the format or layout, edit it. But it is not a vanity page. Intelligentguest 16:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Does not pass WP:CORP. rehpotsirhc 16:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Speedy Delete - I was wrong, this company does pass WP:CORP. Unfortunately the article is a copyright violation of this article. rehpotsirhc 16:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Keep - User has removed the copyrighted material. rehpotsirhc 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It DOES pass WP:CORP. Burnlounge is featured in Fortune magazine http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/04/03/8373063/index.htm

Also Billboard Magazine http://www.ezilon.com/information/article_7990.shtml

In addition it is being touted by Hootie and the Blowfish, Ted Nugent, Joel Madden and many, many more significant musicians. So it clearly DOES pass WP:CORP Intelligentguest 16:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is not fully developed yet, the article has some vanity, and doesn't seem to be notable enough yet. --Mason 16:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment tagged for cleanup and verification. Article reads like complete adcruft, needs to be wikified, given a more encyclopedic tone, and the claims verified/sourced. It's also scraping WP:NOT crystalball clause IMO, as a beta of something that won't definitely be popular software when it comes out, or that has been widely adopted in beta. I could go either way on inclusion/deletion.--Isotope23 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, that's why it reads like adcruft... Rehpotsirhc just tagged it for copyvio. Speedy Delete as copyvio per Rehpotsirhc.--Isotope23 16:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rewritten so it isn't a copyvio... still needs cleanup and wikification so it doesn't read like adcruft.--Isotope23 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer any copyvio on the page. Wow. I had never tried to create a wiki before. Doubt I ever will again!!! Don't Bite the Newbies For goodness sake! Intelligentguest 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in the Fortune Magazine Article over 10,000 users have signed up already in the "beta" form. So I dispute the crystall ball clause. Burnlounge is a factor now, and it valid for an entry in wiki.

This would also challenge the doesn't seem to be notable enough challenge from Mason.

I have removed the vanity. Intelligentguest 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added verification in the form of the Fortune Magazine Article and the Billboard™ Magazine Article in PDF form.

The article has been cleaned up and wikified where possible. I am wide open to suggestions. What else is wrong with it? Thanks Intelligentguest 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I didn't see anyone bite you, Intelligentguest. It looks to me like you were treated politely and with respect. Now that it looks like the article isn't going to be deleted, you should take your questions and comments about the article to its talk page. rehpotsirhc 17:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - They did, they did. I have marks.  ;-) Ok, I'm off to the talk page to see what I need to do next. Perhaps a little more assumption of Hanlon's Razor instead of malice. I'm just trying to create an entry on a subject that I think is valid. I'm not trying to "pull a fast one" on anyone. As you can see by my previous entry, I'm growing thicker skin. I'll be ok. Thanks for asking though.  ;-) Intelligentguest 17:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said "scraping" WP:NOT, not that it was actually violating it. You may notice I also didn't render a delete opinion; I just said I had no strong feelings one way or another... and a thick skin is pretty close to mandatory when people are mercilessly editing your work!--Isotope23 17:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete as this project is still in its beta testing. Which places it at issue with WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Roodog2k 22:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think this is a crystal ball deal. Burnlounge has 10,000 paying retailers at this point. You can buy music online at their sites. It is a working, functioning music download service right now. The beta thing is a technicality which covers the fact that for their official launch they will add some more functionality to the software and it will be "official." Finally, the "beta" period is supposed to be over in a month, so by the time you delete this, it will be valid again. And I certainly am not coming back and recreating it then. Again, this isn't a crystal ball, Burnlounge exists now, they are selling the mogul packages like crazy. There are tens of thousands of individual sites already up and running. It is a topic that should be in an online encyclopedia. We're not saying "there is going to be a Burnlounge service." It EXISTS now, and is in a "working beta" so-to-speak.

Also, I note that this page exists and isn't up for deletion: Windows Vista Intelligentguest 23:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment but Microsoft isn't going to go belly-up anytime soon. The weak in my weak delete vote comes from the fact that the software is still officially, by your own admission, in beta testing. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Roodog2k 13:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This falls under the POV policy. Michael Ridge (aka Intelligent Guest) from Batesburg, SC, has a personal vendetta against Burnlounge. His comments above are anecdotal (70% rule), and he ties in his own discussion forum as a link. This is pure trash.Jen-n-tonic 20:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page is very balanced and includes a fair bit of useful, factual information about Burnlounge as well as links to celebrity endorsements and discussion pages. If there are other discussion pages, ADD THEM to the list. The only other one I know of is abandoned and filled with garbage. Add to it or enhance it. Intelligentguest 01:47, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ill will[edit]

Totally dicdef. Dangherous 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dicdef. San Saba 03:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innsbruck New Year’s Eve amidst the mountains[edit]

This article is about a New Year's Eve celebration. Lots of cities have celebrations for holidays, including my small hometown which has a Christmas celebration in this attendance ballpark. -- Kjkolb 16:14, 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 00:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necrolust[edit]

Delete - had it prod'd, but contested, so here 'tis. Article detailing some event that happened to a non-notable clan. This event is probably made up, as it cites no sources and a Googling of relevant terms has turned up absolutely nothing verifying this story. Wickethewok 16:27, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Underground (2nd nomination)[edit]

Previously AfD'd here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Underground), which resulted in a No Consensus Keep. AfD seems to have degenerated into a bit of a political squabble. I renominating this because it is a forum that doesn't meet WP:WEB from everything I see.--Isotope23 16:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. The Alexa ranking is 45,155, which isn't horrible, but the article is POV and a quasi-attack page against Democratic Underground (although I grant you the site was explicitly created as an attack site). "It allows both liberals and conservatives to post, but insists that liberals back their arguments up with facts." And conservatives don't have to do so? At the very least the article needs a massive rewrite. RGTraynor 20:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And Democratic underground isn't an attack site? At least conservative underground allows liberals to even post. Democratic underground deletes any posts contrary to their POV, and then bans the users., in the meantime the poster is mercilessly flamed by rabid liberals. It deserves notability as a response to Democratic Underground, which was notably big, and the Alexa ranking looks good to me. Suggest an article rewrite, but keep ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether DU or CU are attack sites is really irrelevant. #1 problem here is that CU doesn't meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 22:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article makes no claim of notability, no evidence that the site meeds WP:WEB. Pete.Hurd 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because DU is a notable website does not mean every response to it is notable. It's google doesn't come up very well, only 3 relavant sites that I saw, itself, wiki article, and its merchandise site. Personally all of these Politics Underground sites need to get out of the Underground and Vote.--Tollwutig 16:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forum is not notable.--RWR8189 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 'Notable' and 'important' are not the same thing (we saw that with Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign, in which he was treated like a nobody off the street rather than who he was: the elected co-chair of the largest Congressional caucus and the man who derailed his own political career to stop a crooked corporate get-rich-quick scheme.) CU might not be 'notable', but it is important. Katzenjammer 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - The latter is seriously debatable at best (important how? to whom? to anyone other than a member?) and outside the purview of Wikipedia. The former is what matters here. RGTraynor 07:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : sigh, another politically motivated deletion , related to the ones posted about "People For Change" and "Progressive Independent"... actually , a deletion was attempted on this one before , but it failed , now they're at it again. Amfortas 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, alexa rank isn't that bad but it isn't comparable to some of the top political forums that have established non-Afdable articles here. The forum also fails WP:WEB (unless one of the three notability critera per web can be met then I'll stick with delete vote but it notability can be established I'll change my vote).--Jersey Devil 00:06, 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. Flowerparty☀ 15:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relmitos[edit]

I don't see any mention of "Relmitos" in the main article Fire Emblem. This unsourced entry just seems like cruft, to me. PJM 16:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I'm reading this correctly, it's an article about a character in a game that was never released, and may never have even been created in the first place. That's too speculative for me, so Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 20:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Colin Kimbrell. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vowel circle[edit]

"The vowel circle is a device that shows students various vowels. It is used a lot in first and second grades". This doesn't say a lot. This almost makes it as "things made up [so that kids can be taught] in a schoolday". I can't see this getting into Wiktionary in its current state. Dangherous 16:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This one-liner could be Merged somewhere, but I'm not sure of the best target. Maybe Speech therapy? It's a graphical representation of the position of the mouth when various vowel sounds are vocalized. -Colin Kimbrell 20:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as one-line substub that's barely more than a rewording of the title. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero (noun)[edit]

We have this stuff at Wikt:zero Dangherous 16:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as dicdef. RGTraynor 20:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism and attempt to redefine zero with an Urban Dictionary-type definition. --Elkman - (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Elkman. –Sommers (Talk) 11:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as poor attempt to coin a neologistic meaning of a word. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YASE[edit]

A Bangalore initialism. Tiny search engine results Dangherous 16:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Henning Makholm 22:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unstable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 00:03, 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 Redirect to List of business schools in the Nordic countries.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handelshögskola[edit]

Handelshögskola is the Swedish word for a business school (despite the inclusion here of schools in Denmark and Norway, Danish and Norwegian do not use the exact same word but a cognate). The definition is already in Wiktionary, and all the business schools in Sweden and (Swedish-speaking or bilingual schools in) Finland have official names in English, so I see no need for this page. u p p l a n d 16:40, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture parodies of real stores and restaurants[edit]

This article is about the fake names that are made up for stores and restaurants on TV (they are often made similar to the names of well known stores). It is trivial information that is not encyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 16:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Even by the standards of trivial fancruft, this is impressive. RGTraynor 20:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR cruftcruft. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. WP should be a collection of as much knowledge as possible, trivial or not. I clicked on a link to this article because I thought it might have something interesting and new to me; it did. My only reservation is that, by definition, it can never be complete, but I think that's actually a positive thing. Lastly, WP is not paper and a little so-called "cruft" isn't hurting anyone. --SuperNova |T|C| 08:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This page is full of great info and should be kept. --Caldorwards4 16:53, 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:No consensus, revert to keep. Prodego talk 18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)[edit]

Note to new users The general reaction to the presence of new voters voting keep is for long term editors to lean towards deleting. Please don't get this article deleted in your rush to proclaim support. JoshuaZ 19:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion debates[edit]

Discussion[edit]

The page has been recreated but is not the same as previously deleted versions. For one thing, there is now a source of some sort. I don't understand the newspaper source, however, and the other reference is an advert. Recommend delete per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NFT. Chances of this being remembered in a year, let alone ten? Almost surely 0. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. The ad source is the same given in the last AfD; the one where someone wrote the link to the Wikipedia article on a board. The newspaper has less than 75,000 readers and has only a short article which I've heard is very similar to our old article here. Still unverifiable. I recommend actually protecting the ((deletedpage)) this time. --Rory096(block) 17:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was protected. Kotepho 17:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only sprotected at first. --Rory096(block) 18:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was specifically unprotected for this AFD and it is not recreated by a random user which would probably get streams of Speedy delete G4. Kotepho 18:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tony Bruguier 17:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (again). Per the discussion on Talk:The Game (game), there is a high likelihood that the 'source' was in fact based on our article. Even without the tell-tale signs, it does not explain where it got its information from and is next to useless in terms of verifiability. "The Game was also mentioned in an advertisement in MacWorld and MacAddict publications" sums up this article as having been written purely to survive deletion rather than to provide anyone with factual information. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You made me lose Delete Good to see it's actually going through AfD Sceptre (Talk) 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke from orbit once and for all Speedy as previously deleted content. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It is different from the previously deleted content, which is why I didn't speedy it myself. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if we invented this the outside source confirms that it exists. Kotepho 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Erm, a newspaper article based on our article and writing on a board confirms it exists? --Rory096(block) 17:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no evidence that the newspaper article relied on Wikipedia at all. JoshuaZ 17:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I contend that even if the article was based on our article, people have started playing this game. This is the sort of thing that can bootstrap itself into existence and us not having an article on something we (might) have propelled seems silly. Kotepho 18:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really count the MacAddict or whatever it was ad, for the record. Kotepho 18:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the main point to address is Sam Blanning's; he may be right that the newspaper article is partly based on the old Wikipedia article. First of all, we don't know if that's true or not. In the given article, Wikipedia is not mentioned. We have no reason to believe that Wikipedia is the only source of that material, in which case I would agree that it would not be a reliable source. As has been pointed out, it's easy to convince yourself that people know what The Game is and play it by doing a web search: that may not be good enough for Wikipedia, but it's good enough for a newspaper article. Mangojuice 17:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mango and the fact that in general newspapers are considered RS unless one has a very good reason tot hink otherwsie. JoshuaZ 17:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete from orbit and salt the earth. --Syrthiss 18:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It is different from the previously deleted content, which is why I didn't speedy it myself. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could someone who wants to delete this please explain how the current version does not meet WP:V or some other necessary condition? It has a newspaper reference and no one seems to be arguing that it is not-notable. And could those who are voting speedy please explain what speedy condition they want it to be speedied under? JoshuaZ 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only one additional source which does not make it verifiable, it was recreated way outside of policy (this should have been taken back to DRV not recreated and sent here) and it's just another excuse of a reason by a group that will do anything including sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and blatant violation of consensus to delete and policy regarding deletion to get this article on Wikipedia. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to comment on the sockpuppetry matter other than to note that there were many editors (such as myself) who had nothing to do with that, so to label it all as part of some "group" is highly misleading and unproductive. Now, I'm highly curious where in WP:V it says that "one additional source which does not make it verifiable" or something to that effect. JoshuaZ 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the additional source that's my main issue, it's the fact that people are using one source as a way to justify the entire article's recreation against consensus and against policy without even going through it the proper way and it seems nobody really cares about the fact that we are being walked over by the people at Savethegame . org in their quest to get this article recreated at any cost and in the process are making a mockery out of Wikipedia. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Existence of an organized outside group that wants to save the article is not a good reason to delete the article. Why not assume some good faith on the part of this group? I would say that this just provides additional evidence of the notability of the subject.Vlad1 12:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable subject per Mangojuice. --Goobergunch|? 18:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Notability is not the issue here; it's verifiability. --Rory096(block) 18:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Then why did the nominator cite WP:N and WP:NFT as reasons for deletion? --Goobergunch|? 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I don't know, but just because it doesn't meet 2 of the nom's reasons doesn't mean it should be kept. --Rory096(block) 19:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment doesn't really matter, this whole AFD is invalid since it's a blatant policyvio and it's against community consensus because the article was recreated against policy and against consensus. The proper way for this to be done would be for this to have stayed protecteed deleted and it should have gone back to DRV with the new info that a source has been found. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please stop making this claim. We've already discussed, creation of an article which is substantially different from a deleted article is not a policy violation. I'd prefer this to be on deletion review also, simply because it will look more legitimate if it passes, but there is no real reason it needs to be there. JoshuaZ 18:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Consensus? Where? --AceMyth 18:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how exactly do you define consensus? Kotepho 19:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A reliable source has been found. Personally, I think that clinches it. Mister Five 18:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues of process aside - Keep, unless one argues that the article in the newspaper itself is somehow faulty, thus presenting us with the very troubling proposition of Wikipedia's constant and unjustified reliance on unsourced sources throughout virtually all of its articles (and even if the aforementioned sources will be successfully sourced, this inevitably raises the issue of whether we should accept these new so-called sources, as they are similarly unsourced, etc.). --AceMyth 18:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is fundamental to life! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Speedcrash (talk • contribs) . Note also that this user has only one other contribution. JoshuaZ 19:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Also note that it was almost a year ago and it was vandalism. --Rory096(block) 19:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's notable and verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahrazad (talk • contribs) and is user's first edit. JoshuaZ 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I honestly don't see any good reason this article should be deleted. The phenomenon obviously exists, it's clearly notable and not just something "made up in school one day", and we now have a major, reliable source verifying it. If this article is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, I don't see how the vast majority of internet memes articles are. (I suppose those should all be deleted as well, then?) —smably 19:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'd vote keep usually but this was a clear violation of policy. Delete it and restore it when its restorable per policy. -- Alfakim --  talk  20:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20-Mule Team Delete. Wikipedia's civility rules prevent me from saying what I really think about the person who'd write an article about this once, and the words I would choose to describe someone who created this article a fourth time would crash the servers. RGTraynor 20:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you bothered to look at the previous deletion discussions you would find that it survived the first two deletion discussions, so you don't need to worry about your choice descriptions since that didn't occur. JoshuaZ 20:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and keep deleting. The external link in the current article is a primary source excluded per WP:RS. Henning Makholm 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The relevant source is the Belgian newspaper which meets RS. Please read the above. JoshuaZ 20:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete. This article was already deleted as a result of a recent AFD, then put through a Deletion Review. The only supposed "source" for this was a small newspaper article that looks suspiciously similar to the WP article that was deleted. It was brought up during the DRV and was taken into account by the admin who closed it. Their decision was to keep deleted, and protected the article from recreation.
    However, the protection was removed and the article recreated by the very same user/admin who initiated the DRV in the first place! I can't be the only one who sees a problem with that, and I noted it on the article's talk page.
    This article was recreated against policy, and it needs to be sent to the grave again. WarpstarRider 20:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Utterly false. The Belgian article was not brought up in the Deletion Review. And the claims that the newspaper article looks similar to WP are again false. If you are going to argue for deletion make a half-way decent attempt please. JoshuaZ 20:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would advise you to check the archive again. It was brought up toward the end and was mentioned by the closing admin. WarpstarRider 20:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, your right, it was mentioned at the very end of the discussion. Never mind now the fact that many of the objections about verifiability specifically mentioned a lack of newspaper reports. I will interpret your lack of comment on the matter of the newspaper article being similar to the Wikipedia article as a sign that you are no longer defending that claim. JoshuaZ 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more urban dictionary than wikipedia -Bottesini 20:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The newspaper source already seems to have been shot down in DRV wasn't accepted by the closing admin in the DRV, and this article clearly doesn't meet WP:V without it. Furthermore, the article was recreated out of process, as noted by WarpstarRider. If people want it restored, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review again. BryanG 20:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the newspaper source was brought up well after most of the debate and even after the debate was copy+paste moved to a subpage (thus not on people's watchlists). Kotepho 21:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think it's fair to say it was "shot down" in the deletion review. The only comment made on it after it was brought up was by the closing admin. And I see no reason why a newspaper article should be considered unreliable just because it's not sourced. I know of virtually no newspaper articles that are. Mangojuice 21:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, I changed my reasoning accordingly. The reason the source of the article is important (at least to my understanding) is that there was some talk on Talk:The Game (game) about whether the article used WP as a source. I'm not sure I buy it myself, but that is one of the arguments being used against the newspaper article. At any rate, these are things that need to be brought up in another DRV. Quoting directly from WP:DRV: "Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." This is what should have been done in this situation, instead of going against a just-closed DRV and restoring the article. BryanG 21:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if Deletion Review were the correct place to take this discussion, it seems to be pretty policy-obsessive to vote for deletion now solely based on that. Why not ask "If this were at deletion review" what would my opinion be? JoshuaZ 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Relist--oh wait =( Kotepho 22:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't feel I'm being policy-obsessive here. The fact is that both the most recent AfD and the DRV have been closed as "delete". I believe it sets a dangerous precedent if we allow users to ignore two successive debates and recreate a substantially similar article just because one source has been found. That's exactly what DRV exists for, as I noted above. To answer your question, I would probably say that the article is non-notable and vote to keep the article deleted anyway, so my vote stands. BryanG 23:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for my 4th vote in this awesome ordeal. --Liface 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much effort into article if this is for real & notable. Reference links to foreign language (yes I speak it) Login page. 145 non-wiki Ghits. Plus essentially recreating deleted material.Bridesmill 22:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I transcribed (most) of the article if you want to read it. The image cuts off part of it though. Kotepho 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that the number of unique Google hits is NOT a reliable metric. Google lists under 400 unique results for "Wikipedia". The total number of Google results has at least some significance, but as far as I can tell, the number of unique ones is completely arbitrary. —smably 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many times do we have to discuss this? Delete! This article does now, has always, and will always, violate WP:V. The discussion on this page has absolutely no impact on the existence of this article, because you cannot vote (or discuss) to overturn policy on AfD. User:Zoe|(talk)
    • Comment: Why will it always violate WP:V? If the phenomenon were thoroughly researched and the results published by several reliable, independent sources, would you still claim that it violates policy? I can't imagine why it would. (For that matter, I don't see why anyone would claim that it currently does, except for the possibility that the newspaper article's authors got their information from Wikipedia, which should not be presumed to be the case unless there's any hard evidence that they did.) —smably 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kernow on the talk. ~ PseudoSudo 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per previous results of Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game). A Belgian newspaper article that requires registration doesn't give me the warm fuzzies that a reliable source would otherwise give me. The link could be a link to the classified section, for all I know. The undeletion should have taken place at WP:DRV, not as part of a wheel war. Now that the page is back, the problems are back. --Elkman - (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For a reason which for some reason no one here has stated yet, (or at least I think no one has stated it). This article doesn't make sense. After reading it I still don't understand what it is. "You are playing it right now"?!? What is that supposed to mean? "If you think about it you lose"?!! The whole article is utter non-sense. Also, I can't comment on the source since I dont know whatever language it's in. I'm surpised that so many people here know whatever language it is. Is it dutch? Tobyk777 05:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that many people have explained its rules and few have questioned them, I'm afraid that the problem here is on your end. The Game is sensical, if bizarre. It's an anti-memory game: the objective is not to think of it. --Kizor 15:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To those of you voting to delete it, what the hell more do you want? You ask for "real" sources. They're given. Its status as "notable" and "existent" has been confirmed after debating to death. Stop impeding the flow of accurate and unbiased information, especially on such a trivial topic. brabblebrex 05:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Existing reference insufficient. --Davril2020 10:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Referenced in a reputable newspaper, I feel this now meets verifiablity, which was the problem - notability seems fairly established. If you don't "understand" the newspaper source, there's a translation on the talk page.. --Fuzzie (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Usual reasons for requiring sources is to avoid publishing incorrect information. However this "game" is a pure mental phenomenon, nobody claims that it "exists" in any other way except in the minds of people playing it. There seem to be sufficient evidence (even without the newspaper article that I cannot read) that a group of people exists that "play" the game as described in the article. Therefore the article is not incorrect. If it passes notability test then it should be kept.Vlad1 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless article that will not die! Adycarter 12:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm copying my comment from Talk:The Game (game) here, since many editors seem to regard WP:V as an annoying hurdle to be jumped over in order to write their article, rather than what an article should be based upon in the first place.

Yes. Of course [sources must be souced]. Always have and always will. WP:V is not a game. It's about letting readers know where the information originally came from. This source fails miserably to do that, unless they read this talk page and find that it probably came from, well, us.

  • No Wikipedian who wasn't already "playing The Game" would read the newspaper article and consider it worth basing an article upon. Those thinking that this source is sufficient for an encyclopaedia article are in the same frame of mind of those who think that geological evidence proves the infallibility of the Bible and the existence of God. They started out with a theory, and then they looked for evidence, rather than vice versa. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.The game does exist. the page should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.60.239 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete and protect as annoying internet meme, based on WP:V and notability. A single newspaper blurb (especially in a foreign-language newspaper) isn't enough for notability for something like this. Possibly the game is locally notable in Belgium, in which case it could get an article in the Dutch Wikipedia. Has anyone even accessed the Belgian article? The site is subscriber-only. Phr 14:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article has stirred up a huge amount of interesting discussion, but it boils down to the question of whether we should accept something that is real, despite it not being widely documented in traditional source material. I think that we should. The Game is a real phenomemon, and as such it is Wikipedia's duty to document it. By its very nature it does not have much written source material, but it is nevertheless not simply a 'childish game'. Daniel (☎) 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The primary concern was a lack of verifiable sources. a newspaper article (regardless of its country of origin) is verifiable. and regardless, it is blatantly obvious that The Game is notable, considering the vast quantity of discussion on this topic. Gsham 15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument is nonsensical. The fact that something is discussed on Wikipedia is not evidence of its notability or verifiability. Anyone can stir up a tempest in a teapot on Wikipedia. I should start an article called "Gsham sucks" and then create a large controversy over its existence. By your standards, said article would be notable because there would be a vast quantity of discussion on the topic. Get my drift? FCYTravis 08:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The link for the article doesn't work, not that I speak Dutch anyway (sorry Oma). Apart from the overall silliness of the game, I don't understand why the first rule isn't "You begin playing The Game when you have forgotten about it." Otherwise, you've lost upon finishing reading the rules. I also find the enthusiasm for the game inexplicable (it could almost be a subject for a sociological study). It reminds me of the politically incorrect elementary school "gay tests" and "retard tests" where whatever answer you gave "made" you gay or retarded. Шизомби 17:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very simple case of WP:V. Nothing to talk about really. rehpotsirhc 19:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia doesn't need to lose the game again. Bobyllib 20:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clever idea, glad I heard about it, but profoundly non-notable and unable to pass WP:V. -Colin Kimbrell 20:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I wanted a source, and one has been found. I wish it were in English because the majority of our readers can't read Dutch, but I trust the translation and I trust the newspaper. I do hope that someone contacts the author of the newspaper article to ask what sources he/she used in writing it... doing so will either confirm that we're now referencing ourselves circularly or will provide us with more sources for our own article. Until we can prove without a doubt that the author used our article to write his/hers, I'm going to assume he/she didn't, and hopefully that's not shooting myself in the foot. If the result is keep, it will require a fair bit of policing, I'm sure, to keep the original research and general cruft out, but the promise of cruft in the future is not a valid reason for deleting the article now. —Seqsea (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the newspaper source makes 'the game' verifiable. James Kendall [talk] 21:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepThe content of the article is uniquely hard to pin a source down to. Meme phenomena tend to lack the publicity or scholarly research that an article on a current event or the astrolabe would. Specifically, addressing Gsham's point, it's a bit elitist to disregard any attempt at justification solely because the article doesn't happen to be in English. If it is really of that much concern, then maybe have it translated by someone? Or check the qualifications on the publisher itself? If it's a newspaper issue, and if it can't be translated, then see if the source is a credible one. Reiterating: Memes are regional, cultural, etc. phenomena. Just because the New York Times has not piped in an opinion does NOT mean that the information is either any less true or any less informative than any other regional quirks.

Now, certainly, if the article was blatantly dumb, then it merits deletion. However, I can testify that this actually is a true meme. I've talked to people across the state that play this 'game' just as myself and my friends do. Cheers.Mordacil 00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: This user has only 17 edits, and the edit to add this recommendation was the first in three months. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not hurting anything by being there. VegaDark 00:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm in favor of keeping this, but arguments like that do more harm than good. If that were the standard almost nothing would be deleted. Thankfully, it isn't the relevant standard. JoshuaZ 01:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I should have explained myself better. Considering the amount of people that wish to keep this article, I feel this is an appropriate response. For a normal AfD I would not use this as justification, however in a case where there is a heated debate with people for and against keeping an article I am always inclined to vote keep as it isn't hurting anything by being there, and will infact cause more hurt by it being deleted. VegaDark 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried searching usenet for +"think about the game" +lose. I figured those would be in all versions of the game; I didn't find any of the results referring to this game. The only post I can find definitely relating to it is one from April 17, 2005 that links to the WP page. There's one from February 20, 2006 that states "You made me lose The Game" which might refer to it. I think it's important to find references that predate the article's first creation on WP. When was that? The first VFD was posted 30 Sep 2004. Шизомби 07:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC) On April 6, 2004 195.92.67.75 added a description of the game to the disambig page The Game diff. Assuming that's the earliest reference to it on WP, I think the reference challenge is to find references that predate that. Otherwise, WP could well be the source of this meme, and that would be self-reference. Шизомби 07:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, one minute of simple Googling found this. There are others, I just grabbed the first. --Kizor 08:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I hadn't tried searching the web for the oldest references to it, only usenet. Internet Archive has an archive of that page dating back to Dec 31, 2003, so I think the date on the page can be taken as true (I would not put it past the fans of this game to forge a datestamp). More references like that would be good. Шизомби 17:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to finally get rid of all this argumentation. It sounds like a spectacularly stupid game anyway. JIP | Talk 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This argument definitely sounds... I wish I could say "unique". --Kizor 15:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been established prior to this that the game passes WP:N, and with the newspaper article it appears to pass WP:V. Wikipedia's role is to report on what other's say, and provide a source, not to make an original judgement on the source. GeeJo (t) (c) • 08:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please sir, can I have some more sources? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still no reliable sources, still unverifiable, still violates WP:NFT. Alphax τεχ 08:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly written and unverified apocrypha. Precisely what an encyclopedia is not for. FCYTravis 08:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Appears in the press. A global phenomenon, apparently.--Primetime 09:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also Comment: After all this furor, it sadly seems that many are now voting for or against the Game, instead of for or against the inclusion of an article about the Game on its present merits. In particular, a number of deletion votes have been cast on the basis that we had this discussion already, making no acknowledgment of the changed situation. --Kizor 15:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The Danish newspaper is an obviously reliable source and there's zero evidence it was based on the original Wikipedia article. The Game is both highly notable and now reliably sourced. --Clyde 01:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not trying to get on your case personally, but there is no Danish newspaper source, making the rationale for your recommendation dubious. Stifle (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • He probably meant to say Belgian newspaper. It's probably just an honest mistake, and it certainly shouldn't invalidate his rationale and vote to keep the article. BryanG 00:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An announcement. There is no point in continuing this disussion. WP:V cannot be trumped by AfD. There are no verifiable sources. This article, therefore, cannot continue its existence. Deletion is the only result allowable by policy. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zoe, as multiple people have pointed out, the newspaper article does meet WP:V. JoshuaZ 22:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As multiple people have pointed out, the newspaper article, written in a language most people here cannot read, cannot be accessed. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it can be, as someone posted a scan of it on the talk page, but you're not missing anything. It is next to useless with respect to WP:V, as it does not explain how it got its information (which newspapers do generally do when they have a source, contrary to Ssbohio's claim, even if it's unnamed "senior government officials") and we're forced to resort to "they probably know what they're talking about". It seems to score some points in the notability game, though, but personally I don't play it, hence my own continued deletionist stance. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Query, where does WP:V say that a newspaper article is only valid if the article says where it got its information? I see nothing of the sort there. JoshuaZ 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable". In bold text, no less. Generally, that starts with knowing where in the nine hells the information came from. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a much stricter application of that sentence than we normally use. I'm particularly puzzled by your comment that a newspaper saying "senior government officials" is in fact any better, since we have no guarantee that that came from such officials at all. Would you feel better if the article said "we heard about it from all the annoying idiots who keep playing the game and announce 'I lost' in the middle of lectures" or "we kept hearing friends talk about it?" You seem to be creating an unusually high bar of verifiability for this article. Could you please explain what a source would need to say for it to meet your standards on this matter? JoshuaZ 00:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"We didn't read this on Wikipedia." --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried hard to see each side's point on this, since I am uninvolved in this particular article, having had no edits or previous votes. Until I read the article here in Wikipedia, I hadn't heard of this "game." As a fourth attempt at deletion, I'm having a hard time seeing a consensus to delete. Further, when a source is provided to overcome the WP:V issue, those in favor of deletion argue against the verifiability of the newspaper story, despite any evidence that calls its verifiability into account. Secondary sources fall within WP:V and to presume the story unverifiable because it contains no explicit sourcing (in keeping with newspaper tradition) doesn't assume good faith on the part of the keep faction. If the newspaper story is dubious (for reasons grounded in fact), then this article can't rely on it for sole support.

    In the end, having read the discussions here, at DRV, and in the talk page, I have to come down in favor of keeping the article. I can't see where a consensus for its removal has been demonstrated, and the fact that it has been ruled a keep in AfD twice, but forum-shopped back to AfD by those favoring deletion, then forum-shopped again into DRV by those favoring keeping the article, only to end up back here again. This has taken on an unpleasant aspect through all these actions, and I find it hard to believe that a true consensus in favor of deletion could be reached. The article needs wikified & sourced, but not deleted. So, keep. --Ssbohio 22:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is incorrect. Every previous discussion has resulted in keep deleted. There was no need to recreate this AfD, it could have been speedy deleted this time as recreated content, and should have been. Consensus has been clear in every occasion. It has not been ruled a keep in AfD twice, and even if that were, true, violatons of Wikipedia policy are not negotiable. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? it wasn't ruled a keep twice? what about this and this? and how specifically does a (non-english) newspaper article not meet verifiabilty standards? Gsham 23:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Zoe is right in one way. It's blatantly obvious that, with one or two meagre exceptions, no-one is satisfied by the newspaper article except those who were satisfied with an article that had no sources in the first place. At this point in time, the result of this discussion must be the same as the last one ('delete'). --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. You're right that we have as much consensus as we had before.. which is to say, we don't have consensus. The result of the last one was delete not because of consensus but because of no satisfactory answer to the verifiability concerns. Now there is an answer, which makes a difference. Mangojuice 14:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, it's hardly satisifed anyone, so as I read it there is still no satisfactory answer to the verifiability concerns. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not really notable, etc. Freddie 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. OK. you can look and see i'm a long term editor with a long AfD history. Prior to ever going on Wikipedia I had learned "The Game", and I'll be forced to play forever. It's a real phenomenon. How does one verify a game is actually played? One can't unless they play it themselves or have seen or heard it played. Beer Pong has an entry. Prove that people play it. This is the same idea - it's silly.--CastAStone|(talk) 17:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I'll bite :) There is the National Beer Pong Leage, and the game has been mentioned in the New York Times [21]. It's also been in a whole host of other papers; I'd give you links, but I can only find them on LexisNexis. (Apparently it was even banned by a city council.) It's easy to verify that games like tag and hide-and-go-seek and Monopoly are played. It's less easy, but still possible, to prove that many less-timeless games are played. —Seqsea (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hrad to call over wether to delete or not. By the looks of things, this will be completely nn in a matter of a decade and will be deleted then, so why not now? But I mean, why has this rolled over to its 4th Afd? This is just Over the top. J.J.Sagnella 22:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When this is deleted again, we'll probably get a 5th debate when it gets a passing mention on TechTV or some other geek satellite channel at 2 in the morning. "It was on TV! We won The AFD Game! Speedy Strong Ultra KEEPALITY!" --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remind me how your comment is an argument for keeping the article, a constructive addition to this discussion, or anything other than an ad hominem attack on those who believe this article is worthy of Wikipedia. The behavior on both sides of this debate has been very disappointing; you're not helping. —smably 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete‼ Jesus Christ! How many times are we gonna do this? Delete with extreme prejudice and nuclear-protect the page so that no one but Jimbo or the Secretary-General of the United Nations can ever unprotect it again. --phh 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you for that reasoned rational response, why not take a look at what the new source is and think about it rather than simply reacting? JoshuaZ 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Snipeback Hey, thanks for your in-no-way-insincere advice! In fact, my last word on the subject before today not only addressed the newspaper story specifically but even supported the reinstatement of the article because of it. The decision to end the deletion review was made by the closing admin with full knowledge and consideration of the Belgian article, and I understand and support his decision and the reasons behind it. Two days later, with no new information having emerged in the meantime, the admin who originally dragged this article's sorry carcass to deletion review in the first place brought it back from the dead, in defiance of process, and that admin should be disciplined for it. And that brings us back to the present, and my question stands: How many more times are we gonna have to do this? --phh 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed your previous comment. Please accept my apologies. JoshuaZ 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no reason you should have remembered that comment, or remembered that it was from me. And certainly my initial comment here wasn't as helpful as it could have been. No hard feelings. --phh 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I live in Singapore halfway around the world from the United States and even my friends have mentioned it to me (they are non-Wikipedians by the way). So, I don't have any external sources to back its existence, but I have heard of it myself, so pardon my original research. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Curious how such a (seemingly harmless) article provokes such a strong, sometimes very emotional response. Is it not an evidence that the article is probably interesting to many people? Maybe we should put the question of its agreement to the letter of the policy aside (as it seems that people disagree about it). If it is an interesting article, and it does not contain any false information, what is the harm of keeping it? Frankly I do not understand "strong deletionists". Do they really feel it is one of the worst articles in Wikipedia? --Vlad1 01:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps they feel that if this page is kept it will lead to a slippery slope of other non-notable games being created. It won't, though. I don't understand the deletionists. This game is not hurting anyone. --Liface 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A slippery slope is a definite concern. The fact is that the the notability and verifiability of this could be seen as in the gray area, and the last thing we need is for Wikipedia to become a collection of random memes. So while I disagree with those editors, one should see where those who have objected on WP:N/WP:V grounds are coming from. JoshuaZ 03:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Believe me, this "game" is a real thing. I first heard about it up at Georgetown University where I go to school, and when I went to the University of Florida to visit some friends they knew about the game. This isn't some sort of joke, it is a legitimate social pheomenon that deserves an article more than many articles currenlty on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.223.226 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, just barely. Notability is beyond question; verifiability is a serious issue, but has been addressed sufficiently to prevent deletion. If non-English sources violate WP:V, a lot of my own work on Korea-related articles will go down the tubes. If unsourced newspaper articles are unacceptable -- well, then this article is just the tip of a whole sunken continent of deletions. -- Visviva 06:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well said. This certainly seems to be held to much stricter standards than your average article. --Kizor 07:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference here is, this is supposedly a widespread, global phenomenon. It ought to have gotten more coverage than one small Belgian newspaper article. WarpstarRider 07:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A widespread global phenomenon that by its very nature avoids mention in the media. (Funny story: last night before going to sleep I took a person on my MSN buddy list at random, said "you just lost The Game" and signed off. This morning there was a "you bastard!" post on the forum I know him from. We've never broached the subject.) --Kizor 08:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No! No it does not "by its very nature avoid mention in the media!!" Not everyone who hears about it wants to "play." Some people, believe it or not, consider the whole thing moronic and don't even accept the fascist dictum that everyone who's heard about it is "playing" it whether they want to or not. There is nothing preventing any reliable source anywhere from taking notice of it other than that they believe a stupid, pointless "game" "played" primarily by bored and often chemically altered college students is beneath their notice. And, wow, maybe they're right. --phh 15:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment This is a good point, I doubt the nature of the game would stop a reporter from discussing it in an article if they thought it was notable. That said, I refuse to play/acknowledge the game among people who are playing it, and I still think that the article meets WP:N and WP:V. (Also, my impression is that it is more often played by bored highschool students than chemically altered college students) JoshuaZ 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also... while this didn't directly affect my vote, I would advise many of those arguing for deletion to use more measured language, if they actually wish to be taken seriously. While I realize that much of the hostile, abusive language directed at this article has become commonplace on AfD, these tirades certainly violate WP:CIVIL as I understand it. -- Visviva 06:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Funny. The Game obviously exists and everybody here already lost it, because we thought about it. We would not write comments here if we would still play it --Roy-SAC 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've not voted on any of the previous AfDs on this article - however I have watched them all with great interest. Come on guys, this is clearly much worse than a lot of the stuff on WP:LAME. Policy wise I'd say that I'd have to lean towards Delete even though this damn game is clearly an interesting social phenomenon. Hopefully a non-circular source will appear soon so it can be kept. QmunkE 09:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is notable and verifiable. Delete voters have yet to quote any Wikipedia policy which invalidates the source.
From WP:NOR:
"In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy" Kernow 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that would refer to a controversy about a piece of information that differs between two or more sources, not whether wikipedians can decide as to whether a single source is a legitimate basis for an article or not. To refer to that latter "controversy" in the article would be self-reference. Шизомби 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"controversy...over what constitutes a legitimate...source." Kernow 01:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that. However, I believe it means if there is a controversy about what constitutes a legitimate source, that information is to be compared with information from another source and the difference between those compared in the article. Noting that wikipedians don't agree about whether a source is notable or reliable in the article would violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Шизомби 02:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. wikipedia:Verifiability problem. A newspaper is the source of news, not facts. Since the quoted newspaper article does not quote any reputable sources, this publication is classified as rumor in my world. `'mikka (t) 21:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mikka Jaranda wat's sup 21:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the original version of the page was linked from the BBC. If the BBC reckon it exists, then that is the most reputable source in the world. Deleting a page just because people thing the subject is childish is madness, and suggesting something does not exist just because you haven't heard of it is grossly naive. The Game exists, and therefore requires an encyclopedic article on wikipedia. DJR (Talk) 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I knew of its existance back in 2001 and have only been using/editing for a year. I don't see how this is any less notable then the huge bios of Star Wars characters, or the Spoo article on the front page.... (whoops forgot to sign) Enotayokel 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely true, we will eventually have verifiability. This article was nominated for deletion five times, and it only got deleted by luck last time. This is definitely a noteworthy and worthwhile phenomenon. Ingoolemo talk 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the article to be kept, there needs to be verifiablity now, not a promise of it some time in the future. And this is only the fourth time this was nominated; the third resulted in deletion because of policy, not "by luck," and the deletion was upheld in DRV. (It really shouldn't even be here now.) WarpstarRider 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the nature of The Game makes verifying it difficult, for now. This is one of the borderline articles that separates Wikipedia from Britannica. There are many articles on Wikipedia with less verified sources than The Game, but they exist simply because they aren't notable enough to garner the kind of attention that this article does. Just let it stay, let the sources appear as they will with the number of devotees that will keep on adding to the article, and let the whole debate die. - dharmabum 10:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
"If you can verify this, then it can be added back." - Rory096
After a source is found, Rory096 votes "Strong delete" because "The newspaper has less than 75,000 readers". This is more than 1 out of every 150 Belgians.
"If it's so damn notable someone other than bloggers should have written about it." - Sam Blanning
After it is written about in a reputable newspaper, Sam Blanning votes "Delete" because "there is a high likelihood that the 'source' was in fact based on our article". There is no evidence for this, especially considering the two articles document the same phenomenon.
"Until there is a writeup in a reputable newspaper or magazine, this does not have any veracity." - User:Zoe
After it is written about in a reputable newspaper, Zoe votes "Delete" because "This article does now, has always, and will always, violate WP:V".
"I don't think we'll ever be able to get rid of the original_research tag" - phh
After a source is found, phh votes "Delete!!" with no reasonable explanation.
"Keep deleted until criteria for includion in wikipedia are met: independent reputable source." - `'mikka
After an independent reputable source is found, Mikka votes "Delete" because "A newspaper is the source of news, not facts."
A worrying number of delete voters refer to the newspaper's language as if this somehow reduces its reputability. (including Stifle who nominated this for deletion "there is now a source of some sort. I don't understand the newspaper source, however")
Although it has a relatively small circulation, it is read by a significant proportion of Belgians (about 1 in 150). It is likely that hundreds of thousands of people now play The Game as a result.
Even if the paper is based on the Wikipedia article, for which there is no evidence, someone has yet to quote Wikipedia policy which would invalidate the source because of this.
The Game was created before the Wikipedia article existed. Although I cannot prove it, I have been playing since 2002. I am fairly certain this blog entry pre-dates the earliest Wikipedia article. Kernow 10:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you have to scroll down to the bottom to see the earliest entry. --Anaraug 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I don't think it's possible to interpret the article as other than a unacceptable document for wikipedia--imputing as it does an extremely malicious intention to the Site and our research and content policies. I accept that it may not have been wise to speedy it; deletion is like that. So I find the situation of the consistent undeletion and deletion of this article disruptive, but the constant outcries for it trips my troll alarm. I honestly don't believe this article to be notable enough, sourced properly or even apporpriate for this encyclopedia. -ZeroTalk 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Extremely notable, verifiability seems to depend on interpretation, and therefore the controversy over the legitimacy of the source should be included in the article as per WP:NOR as first mentioned by Kernow: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy" --Anaraug 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's clear that several AfD regulars simply have a vendetta against this article now because the previous nominations have annoyed them. You asked for verifiability, and you got it. Claiming that this newspaper is not verifiable is ludicrous. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The numbers of people who believe that newspapers are ultimate truth (possibly after Bible or Qu'ran) is amazing. I hope that the "Disappearing blonde gene" story will be instructive for some believers in printed matter. `'mikka (t) 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a funny link. We all know that just because something is printed doesn't mean it's true. But being printed in a source such as a newspaper is generally taken as some fairly good evidence, particularly by the WP:V policy. Do you have a reason to doubt this newspaper article? What part of it would be in doubt, anyway? Right now I have the amusing idea of this paper subsequently publishing a retraction: "The 'Game' that we described in our previous edition was found not to exist. It was made up by malicious Wikipedia editors. Nobody actually plays it. We apologize for the error." Except in Dutch, of course. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When in doubt, Keep. Strong keep. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 23:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to go with Keep. I wouldn't have even learned about The Game without this article. It's significant, has good information, and is encyclopedic. ShadowMan1od 01:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, minor pop society fad. Not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is "record what the human race has learned", not "node what you know" like Everything2. silsor 22:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I learned to play 'The Game' this summer, from my friends at camp. Trust me, it's real, and you guys made me lose. AmethystAngel 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request Could people who are voting keep please vote for reasons that are related to policy and the guidelines not whether you played at camp or not. I've been arguing to keep this, possibly against my better judgement, but it won't help me or the closing admin at all if the AfD is full of keep votes that are completely irrelevant. Furthermore, it will very likely color the closing admin's attitude against the keep arguments. JoshuaZ 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep by all means, this is encyclopedic and useful. Twi20Pi 06:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has a mere 39 edits.[22] -ZeroTalk 15:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are hundreds, even thousands, of hits on google for this. This does not make the article any more or less verifiable. What it does, however, do, is make it (in my opinion) notable. There's also the numerous people here on Wiki from across the world who say they've played it. Of course, I'm not sure what the person who put this up for deletion is intending to get at with notability, since it's a bit of a nebulous concept (at least as I'm reading it). The person who sent this to AfD explaining what they mean by declaring this article non notable would help. Of course, as far as I can tell, notability isn't specifically Wikipedia policy.
Secondly, there's the matter of NFT, but I think that if we resolve Verifiability, then NFT becomes a moot question. Which, of course, brings us back to the original question (the one causing so much discussion): Is this verifiable? Which leads me to ask, what (if anything) makes this article unfit? Admittedly, I'm not an expert on Wiki Policy, but could someone point out to me what makes this new article unverifiable? I understand hesitancy to use an article printed in a language many do not speak, but the policy on Reliable Sources states that English sources are prefered when possible. This seems like a juncture in which English sources are not possible. Further, the article goes on to state
"Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation."
I suspect that no one will be heavily quoting the article, but even if they were, since this is intended as a source, it will surely be linked. Further, Kernow has raised some interesting points, both here and on the talk page, about the reliability of the (or any) source, and cases in which primary sources are acceptable.
That said, my vote is to Keep
(On a side note, I've seen a surprising number of votes based not on anything policy, but on thinking the article is stupid or good, or other subjective evaluations.) Darquis 08:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User only has 33 edits. [23] -ZeroTalk 15:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that even relevant here (other than in the avoidance of sock puppetry)?Darquis 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is a touchy process, and has become more and more inatricate as time goes on. Notes of recent wikipedians are simply made on discussion pages for various reasons, one of which is sockpuppetry. Please don't take offense, your viewpoint is just as valid as anyone elses. -ZeroTalk 17:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Ashibaka tock 17:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually meat-puppetry is more important - i.e. someone asks their friends to come vote for it. However, it is also significant in that it is not a democratic vote - it is a collective rumination on the article in relation to policy. We logically should expect more experienced users to have a thorough grasp of the regulations and to be able to orient their votes based on previous AFDs they've participated in. --Davril2020 18:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for pointing out people with only one or two edits - but 33 is quite a bit. --Kizor 19:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for the clarification. I can see why it would be a problem (and that this particular AfD is treated like democracy trumps policy) and why my account might be a concern (a low edit ratio with a focus on the article up for AfD). No offense taken.Darquis 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup because it's notable. Forget all of the wikipedian politics surrounding the article, because in the end it boils down to whether or not the article is notable. IMHO and based on the evidence that I've read here, I think that the article should be kept.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable because in the end however notable it is, WP:V is firm policy. Notability is only a guideline and does not trump policy. Just zis Guy you know? 22:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. the wub "?!" 23:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I originally closed this AFD, but I should not have done so as, among other things, I was too involved in setting it up. I think that a few admins should get together on WP:AN and decide it there. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I knew about this game from experience about 2 years ago. I checked Wikipedia then to see if we had an article on it. Sure enough, we did. That was good enough for me then. WP:V has a flaw. Wikipedia is not allowed to be the first source to report on a fact; we have to wait until some other source that is deemed a verification source has already reported on it. We should not have to wait until there is a single "good enough" source. Having some number of Google hits should be good enough to say "yes, this is verifiable", even if none of those hits are good enough on their own to merit verifiability. What that "some number of hits" should be may need to be left up to interpretation. In the case of The Game, it certainly exists, there is sufficient Google hits to document the information and therefore verify the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm in favor of keeping this article due to sourcing but the above argument is simply ridiculous. Wikipedia should not be allowed to report on new facts. See WP:NOR. JoshuaZ 14:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy delete with extreme prejudice. Besides being a recreation of deleted content (which it is, references to unknown-sourced Belgian newspapers be damned), it still doesn't hold up against WP:V (which is, lest we forget, the entire reason the article was eventually deleted in the first place and the reason it didn't come back after WP:DRV). Furthermore, if this page is deleted I would like to see it locked against all editing (not just from non-logged-in users, and except possibly certain admins) to prevent an article which went through due process in AfD, due process in DRV, was deleted, and is now up for a FOURTH DELETION from being recreated again. Kinitawowi 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And if you noticed the first two of those AfD said keep. JoshuaZ 14:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has never been deleted through the standard process; it was deleted over a lack of consensus by an admin who used WP:V to trump the AfD discussion and who later said in the DRV that he regretted his decision (I think I got him confused with Ashibaka). The words "fourth deletion" are misleading when the article was only deleted once, and that deletion was dubious. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Sean Black did not comment on the DRV. He certainly did not say that he regretted his decision. —Seqsea (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Everything above is correct except the detail that I don't think Sean said he regretted it. The main point, however, still stands: calling this the fourth deletion, is just wrong. JoshuaZ 15:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. Looks like WP:V is doing it's job just right, it's not flawed. We are not here to document social phenomena, we are here to report what reliable sources say. If there are no reliable sources, delete until there are. The newspaper article in question does not count. There are other places for this type of thing, Wikipedia is just not it. - Taxman Talk 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commennt And just why does the Newspaper article not count? JoshuaZ 15:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has ever given me a good reason why the newspaper article does not count. Is it because it isn't in English? That is an obviously spurious claim. Is it because it is subscriber only? Also unfounded. Is it because it doesn't cite it's source? What? Most newspaper articles do not nor books. Small subscription base? It has around 8% of the subscription base of the Wall Street Journal Online. It isn't exactly small. Kotepho 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't think that one single foregn-language newspaper article is a bit thin for something which is asserted to be so globally pervasive? You don't think that perhaps that was just an example of a protologism actually achieving its aim? Just zis Guy you know? 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considering the views of the majority of users, plus the fact I can no longer use Wikipedia due to this article, I now strongly believe this article is in no way adding to the quality of the site, and is actually devaluing the rest of the information available via the wiki software. Delete with immediate effect IMO. Lessthanthree 16:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm... how exactly is this preventing you from using Wikipedia? -- Visviva 17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because every time they come here they think of this article, thus losing the game in the process. VegaDark 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Still no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cashville Records[edit]

I seen Cashville Records website and looked at it clearly. I believe that it's possible for it to true, but there is no official word from Interscope Records. Interscope has the say in that matter. To me, personally, it looks like a fan site devoted to Young Buck. The B.G. is in talks with G-Unit, but not a signed member of the group or an artist established to any label other than Chopper City Records, his own established label. I doubt B.G. would be a part of any label after Cash Money cheated him out of money. Not saying G-Unit would, but it's more likely he wouldn't. LILVOKA.

Improperly listed AFD by the same nom. Stole this rationale from the previous no consensus debate. Kotepho 17:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete. This should be clear. B.G. is not on G-Unit South, Lil' Scrappy is working with G-Unit but not apart of the label, and every other fan rumor is false. LILVOKA.
Also stolen from there, added to the closed debate. Kotepho 17:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete B.G., Young Buck and Lil' Scrappy are notable rappers but this is probably a rumor/crystal ball. Just know basic American hip-hop music and can't stand 50-Cent. There is no mention of this so called "Cashville Records" label in major American music websites such as Billboard.com, almusic.com, and MTV.com. It is just briefly mentioned as "G-Unit South" in several MTV articles. [24] Saying that the record label will be coming soon and all those articles are dated in 2004. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As per all my reasons from the previous AfD nomination. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous AfD result. We cannot go around discussing the same articles every several weeks just because somebody does not like the outcome. Henning Makholm 22:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what the hecks with renominating articles time after time after time anyhow? Jcuk 00:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whoever put the G-Unit South made the inaccurate comment that rap artist B.G. is on this "supposed" label. I am not saying it's a crystal ball or saying it true. You perhaps think that G-Unit has expanded over with Cashville Records whenas there is no official site other than that squanter site with Google advertising among others. And besides how can Lil' Scrappy break ties with Warner Bros/Atlantic without comfirming. Show me proof and again I will recend my nomination. Right now I see a fansite not a webpage devote to G-Unit Records. Whoever made this page just copy the information from the website and posted it on the Wikipedia site! And beside it doesn't cite sources. #D-Tay- Fellow Tennessee rapper released mixtapes with Young Buck before Young Buck signed with G-Unit and has just linked a deal with G-Unit South. He is now preparing for his first big label debut. So therefore this is false. #B.G.- Former Cash Money rapper and Hot Boy has just signed to G-Unit South after weeks of speculation. So therefore this is false. B.G. is currently on Koch Records, but recently signed to Atlantic Records. #Lil' Scrappy- Former BME Records rapper, has finally signed with G-Unit South after tons of web rumors.” So therefore this is false. See the discussion as well as the Cashville Records.net website. Thanks. LILVOKA.
  • Delete per WP:V. No source other than its own website. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 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 no consensus to deletethe article. Mailer Diablo 03:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny[edit]

The video described by this page is self-published original research, not from a reliable source, and serves only to promote the video and aggrandize the crank theories of the author, in violation of Wikipedia policies. Gnetwerker 17:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, from WP:V:
Self-published sources: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so. -- Gnetwerker 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. -- Gnetwerker 17:07, 14 April 2006 //(UTC)
  • Keep - WP:NOR applies to original research published on Wikipedia, not Wikipedia articles about original research. It's well-written and roughly NPOV, I see no reason to delete. P.S. -- I also cleaned up the formatting of this AfD per convention. rehpotsirhc 17:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and source. As it stands now it is WP:NOR as it is a description of the video not attributed to a reputable source. The subject is notable, generating 140,000 hits in Google ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge onto Alex Jones (journalist) , the author. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge To Alex Jones, not substantially notable by itself. JoshuaZ 18:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to weak keep or merge per talk page. JoshuaZ 04:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no substantial citable sources. The blurb on Alex Jones already consists of as much as is appropriate or citable about this film. There was substantial debate and work after the last AfD, which resulted in the page you've seen. Weregerbil and Schizombie have both worked significantly on the article and it still lacks ANY citable sources.--Mmx1 18:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article has already survived an afd, and the article has not changed substantially since that time. The film is notable, has had widespread distribution, returns many Google hits, and has an IMDB entry. Describing a publicly available film is not original research; the film is the primary source. --Hyperbole 19:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. Weregerbil added the enormous summary. He and Schizombie both made good faith efforts to find sources and found none. The last AfD resulted in no consensus with many editors wanting to see more sourcing. Well, at least four editors have tried and failed to find sources for this. --Mmx1 19:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the overview was added by Mary Read while the previous AfD was still ongoing. It is perplexing to me how one could claim that there is inadequate sourcing for this documentary when it has 24,500 Google hits, of which 352 are unique; ratings on several review sits; and when it is available for public download. Are you really concerned about verifiability?? --Hyperbole 19:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The overview deleted (and readded) by Gnetwerker was originally added by Weregerbil after watching the film and noting the 9-11 content of the article at AfD time was only a small piece of the movie. Mary Read proofread most of it during the AfD. Tell me, what is there to say in this article other than to synopsize the movie? 352 ghits is notable these days? --Mmx1 19:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once there has been even a single delete vote on an AfD (excluding the nom), it is ineligible for Speedy Keep. You should change your vote to Strong Keep instead. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In general, IMDB is more useful as a sign of non-notability when a film is not there than a sign of notability when it is. The conditions to be on IMDB are very weak. JoshuaZ 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Film is higly notable in its own context, first film from the 9/11 truth movement and Alex most famous movie. Does not fullfill any criteria for deletion, specialy not bogus criteria as not finding sources, the entire movie is available for download, you need sources for what? With the same logic, lets delete The Lion King as unsourcable original research.--Striver 19:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lion King had media reviews which are cited; nobody cared to review this movie. --Mmx1 19:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once there has been even a single delete vote on an AfD (excluding the nom), it is ineligible for Speedy Keep. You should change your vote to Strong Keep instead. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, change to strong keep--Striver 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is surely satisfied here; better data organization to have an article on the film, separate from the Alex Jones article. Kestenbaum 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. The author/producer is the poster. It's no different than if someone put their blog up. The medium used to express their opinion is shouldn't be the the basis to determine inclusion.--Tbeatty 20:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looking at the page's history, it seems Striver had added it. I don't think Striver is Alex Jones, much as he loves him. Шизомби 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please review Wikipedia:Speedy_keep, your votes do not meet the criteria for speedy keep. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Invoking WP:NOR is preposterous. The criteria is whether this is a notable documentary or an insignificant self-published work. I'll change my vote if I or someone else comes up with some mainstream media references to this documentary. Gamaliel 22:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP doesn't have a guideline for notability of movies, which makes things difficult to decide what to do about them. IMDb's criteria for inclusion was mentioned above; it's at http://us.imdb.com/updates?update=title if anyone is curious. There are a couple of movies I had a devil of a time submitting to IMDb, though I'd bought one in a video store and the other from online after hearing about it (if I recall correctly) on Leno. Factual observations about a primary source that others can consult and make the same observation are AFAIK permissible. E.g. you don't need to cite a secondary or tertiary source to note that a given person is in a movie, or to quote it. Such sources are needed when the article starts getting deeper; what the meaning or ramification of things are, whether it's good or not, etc. See the part of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources that states "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." Шизомби 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rehpotsirhc. If we apply the criterion of the nominator, then General relativity would also have to go! LambiamTalk 00:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment incorrect. General relativity has been written about in scholarly journals, making it notable. This video, however, has not. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, can you read? If so, please try to exercise that capability before calling someone else incorrect. (1) The stated reason for nomination is "original research", and not "non-notable". (2) The nominator requires that the article does not describe something that is original research (instead of the article itself not being OR). LambiamTalk 01:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the interpretation of one editor on watching the video OR? It's a good question; and I'm not fully decided on the answer yet. --Mmx1 01:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the interpretation of one editor on reading an encyclopedia article? Although not Original Research (I hope), it may occasionally produce quite Original Results :) LambiamTalk 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why you should never cite wiki itself in an article. That's pretty well established policy. --Mmx1 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant real encyclopedias like l'Encyclopédie. ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Große Brockhaus, or the Большая Советская Энциклопедия. LambiamTalk 08:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General Theory of Relativity would not be on Wikipedia if it had not been peer reviewed and especially if it had been posted by Einstein himself. It would have been an Original Research vanity posted by Einstein until it could be reviewed by an outside source and validated. In fact, I think that's how science treated it when it was originally published. It's certainly how Einstein treated Quantum Mechanics. This is a blog that was committed to film and posted by the author.--Tbeatty 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General Theory of Relativity would also not be on Wikipedia if the criterion set forth by the nominator is literally applied. The point is not that General relativity should not be here, and not even that the nominated article should necessarily stay, but that there is something wrong with the given reason for nomination by itself, independent of the merits of any past, present, or future articles. It is a garbled rendering of WP:NOR, in which the text of the article is confused with the topic of the article, a confusion that is also common for WP:NPOV. LambiamTalk 09:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWhile I do not agree with what the movie has to say, I do not see anything wrong with this article. By the reasons given for deletion, we should technically also delete the Fahrenheit 9/11 page. It would be nice if there were some more of criticisms or reactions to the film though.--DCAnderson 02:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The movie is mentioned in the book Colloidal Silver : Making the Safest and Most Powerful Medicine on Earth for the Price of Water by Mark Metcalf (no, not that one) page 115. Eh. More notably, a college professor had named a course after the movie and was going to use Jones as material for it. Jon Sanders, "Academic Insanity at North Carolina Wesleylan" FrontPageMagazine.com, April 18, 2005. However, she died in November 2005: http://www.ncwc.edu/News/Archive/2005/0000112205-01.htm If that's not fuel for the conspiracy theories, I don't know what is! Шизомби 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC) There was also a follow-up column, Jon Sanders, "Jihad Jane Attacks Frontpage Writer" FrontPageMagazine.com, May 10, 2005 Шизомби 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry, one more follow-up on the Jones/Professor/911 story from FPM, Mike Adams, "Jihad Jane and the Jews" FrontPageMagazine.com, April 5, 2005 Шизомби 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whether or not it is "fuel for the conpiracy theories" (and if that's the best you can do that must be a very weak flame) is irrelevant for separate notability. The FrontPage reference could be construed as going towards WP:N but the rest is useless. In any case, it still makes more sense to merge or delete it. A single mention does not make a movie notable. JoshuaZ 02:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't make anything of her death, I was thinking the tinfoil hat crowd would; just because I'm finding info on this movie doesn't mean I believe it. There was a brief mention of the movie in the NY Post archived here:www.infowars.com infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used/saved%20pages/alex/page_6.htm]. There original link to the Post is linked from here[25] but is inactive. Шизомби 02:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) There's criticism of the movie at Free Republic[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1013296/posts] but I don't know if that's an article or a blog posting, and whether it merits inclusion. Шизомби 02:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any relevant material to Alex Jones. Per nom.--Jersey Devil 08:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable film, no balanced coverage in major media found. Article is an utter mess with little hope of being salvageable to something balanced. Weregerbil 11:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The previous AFD was closed 5 weeks ago. A relist this quickly is disrespectful of the previous discussion, especially since it received a reasonable number of comments. Give the article some time to evolve after a failed AFD, at least 3 months or so. At a bare minimum, the previous discussion and comments ought to be considered as part of the current discussion, since it was so very recent. (I would say delete for notability reasons otherwise). Derex 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was no consensus the last AfD so I fail to see how it's "disrespectful" considering the ambivalence that exists about this article. It might be disrespectful if the outcome were clearly delete or keep but that's not the case. Moreover, the article received a lot of attention and editing after the AfD, especially from User:Weregerbil. --Mmx1 19:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not even remotely close to being a delete. And, there's not a chance in hell it would be deleted by an experienced admin now if the inputs of those prior commentors are weighed. So, it's disrespectful in the sense that it seeks to disregard that prior & quite recent input with very little time for the article to evolve since. This is pure AFD shopping. Derex 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, so far it is 55% to 45% in favor of delete or merge, so your idea of "not even remotely" is somewhat out of whack. -- Gnetwerker 05:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not by the standards of AFD it's not. I'll say it again, it was not even remotely close to deletion. And I personally think it ought to go, but those prior comments ought to count as well. Derex 05:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Alex Jones...has 906,000 googles, virtually all of them blog entries.--MONGO 15:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What would Zac Moussaoui do, if he would be here right now...? - Darwinek 16:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's that supposed to mean? --Mmx1 19:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That he's a quite nice guy. --Darwinek 20:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- to here: 8 Delete, 8 Keep, 2 Merge -- Gnetwerker 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, possibly smerge to Alex Jones. Sandstein 10:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The previous afd is irrelevant. The movie is notable enough, I say keep it.--God Ω War 06:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nn OR/propaganda film.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable. For great justice. 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep, cleanup tag stays. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Retablos[edit]

It's a college essay; it's even signed with the author's name and school. Rory096(block) 17:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. So it's a college essay. That does not per se invalidate its use as a base for a Wikipedia article if we don't have one on the subject already (which I couldn't find outright). It needs cleanup, though. At least it cites sources. Henning Makholm 22:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup or merge into Retable if you must. Legit topic and it isn't *that* bad. Heck, fix the formatting & you are halfway there. Crypticfirefly 03:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge, with cleanup. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 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 as fifth repost of deleted material, and an nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GGFan[edit]

Delete non-notable fancruft page with no sources, so unverifiable. Has been created and speedied five times since September. On the talk page, the creator of the latest version claims it is more substantive (and has contested speedy and prod notices). Only claim to notability put forward so far is a link to a post on an external noticeboard claiming to be from GGFan. Gwernol 17:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Claiming to be from GGFan? Take a look at LionheartGGFans profile. Date joined: July 16th, 2005. Hey, The Alternative was created on July 16th, 2005! I gave you two valid sources, so you're wrong by saying there are no sources. So it is verifiable. I can provide more proof if you want BTW. It may have been created and speedied five times but this version isn't a life story or anything like that. It just gives all the good and bad details about a well known person in the Pokemon community, Gamefaqs and even in SDA (SpeedDemonsArchive).

[26] Game logs commented out Further proof supporting the link I sent — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayaBoy (talk • contribs)

  • Delete I commented out the game logs because they don't add anything to the debate. I don't think you understand the guidelines for biography and verifiability. A very few gamers become famous in real life and get covered in newspaper or magazine articles. GGFan isn't one of those. He is not notable outside the Pokemon gamer community, and his notability within the community can not be independently verified through reliable sources. If there is a Pokemon wiki he maybe should be listed there but not in Wikipedia. Thatcher131 17:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete repost ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:20, 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 03:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johns creek baptist church[edit]

prodded and prod removed, non notable church in Georgia, even the "celebrity member" is non notable Montco 17:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell is wrong with this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.206.238.37 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 April 2006.

  • Delete. This article does not establish why the church should have an article in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, see WP:WWIN. Stifle (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Command and Conquer origins[edit]

This page is all fan theory, speculation, and original research. It should be deleted. Jareand 17:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete most of this is fan speculation, there are no sources cited for the specualtive information, and what little facts are presented in the article are covered by a wide variety of other article that do a much better job of presenting the information. TomStar81 20:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all speculation, only a shred of accuracy ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and BJAODN the first sentence. Free speech doesn't apply on Wikipedia, as Mr. Treason discovered. Stifle (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dart-Win Shipping & Enterprises Ltd[edit]

Advertisement. Google search reveals nothing notable about the company. Bige1977 17:32, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isodiasphere[edit]

Neologism and/or non-notable and/or original reasearch. Can't find any significant reference to this term. Google "Isodiasphere -wikipedia" only gives 11 hits. None seem relevant. --BluePlatypus 17:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A discussion of this article can be found at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Is_this_a_hoax.3F.
  • Delete, unless documentation of use of this term can be provided. A literature search turns up no mention of this term in any chemistry or physics scientific journal. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per my comments at the Ref Desk. This looks increasingly like someone's "how long does nonsense stay around in Wikipeda" social experiment. --Bth 18:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find anything in journals on this topic either. Some mentioning of this in foreign language articles, but not something I would consider worthy of an article yet. --HappyCamper 18:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems nonnoteable and probably also fictitious. WAS 4.250 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Chuck 19:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.-gadfium 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - mako 00:13, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forza Motorsport Car List[edit]

This article is completely redundant - it featuers a list that can be found on the main page for Forza Motorsport. Bottesini 17:39, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arncliffe aurora[edit]

No references, non-notable "club"--Zxcvbnm 17:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless notability is documented. Smells hoaxy - why such a concentration of Arabic-sounding names in an Austrailian club? - but there might be some explanation for that. There is a website at http://www.arncliffeaurora.com/, which seems to describe a small club playing in a local amateur league for which Google finds no official website. Article's claims about Lebanese national team players sound fanciful and are probably hoaxes. Henning Makholm 22:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no idea about this club but have put it on the list of deletions on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board so someone from Sydney will no doubt respond. However, soccer is very much organised around ethnic groups and there are many Lebanese in Sydney so it is likely that there are Lebanese teams. This does not make it notable however and I suspect it is not, even if it is not a hoax. --Bduke 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, and seems to attack certain figues in the club. Harro5 01:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. - Synapse 03:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article seems hozxy, club not notable. JPD (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --lightdarkness (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amusement Parks[edit]

Also the associated subpages List of Amusement Parks (A-B) and List of Amusement Parks (C-D). We have Category:Amusement parks which does the same job without the maintenance overhead. We also have Category:Water parks and Category:Theme parks, and various subcategories by location. I'd say this is redundant per those categories; I strongly suspect that it was the impossibility of maintaining such vcasts lists which led the creator to lose momentum after starting back in February. The articles have been esentially untouched since creation, and having seen the scale of the task required to complete the remaining sections from E to Z, let alone maintain the existing ones, I can quite see why. Just zis Guy you know? 17:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with User:JzG's reasoning. Batmanand | Talk 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 22:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, lists are just as valid as categories, and do things categories just are not capable of. Jcuk 00:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shows locations and included red links, neither of which can be done with cateogories. Hawkestone 06:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix. This list is a good start, and as noted, it does things that can't be done in categories. I suggest fixing it by: Moving A-B to main page, reducing the subcategories to just A-B C-D E-Z , and de-wikifying E-Z until someone takes the time to add those. George100 14:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I prefere lists over categories because much more info can be added and they are far easier to read. Would be nice if this was completed. -- JJay 12:27, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Impact Wrestling, Matt Essex, Chi (e-fed wrestler)[edit]

None notable e-wrestling federation, therefore a federation that doesn’t exist and is none notable. It has two extra pages of fantasy wrestlers that belong to this federation. Englishrose 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My mind boggles. The concept of e-wrestling is weird enough by itself, but how can one be a professional e-wrestler? Henning Makholm 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see what all the fuss is. "E-fedding",to me, is a hobby as interesting to some as MMORPGs are to others. I can understand that there was a wrestling federation with those initials but as far I can see, there is none. The federation itself seems quite unique on further inspection. Don't delete as this is just pure victimisation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Furyhumour (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Call me biased, but why is an e-federation which claims to be nothing more than an e-federation being accused of anything? It's fiction, correct - that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, is it really so different to this? And in response to the question of how one can be a, "professional e-wrestler;" the answer is simple. A fictional charcter who's profession is wrestling. What's not real about that? Nebzilla.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nebzilla (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The main reason isn't that it is fiction, the main reason is that it isn't notable, thus doesn't meet WP:N nor is it verifiable as there are no third party sources and thus it doesn't meet WP:V. Despite what you think, your e-fed is different to you example of Lord of the Rings as Lord of the Rings is a very popular and notable set of movies. Englishrose 15:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • When one first chooses to consider that which is notable, one should invariably take account of the facts and figures. www.hiwsuperstars.com is a veritable hive of activity. At this precise moment, there are 22 (13 members and 9 guests) people viewing the forums on which the fiction is written. Notably, 9 guests. Third parties. The naming of something as objectively notable poses a difficult question, but perhaps I can argue a favourable answer in Matt Essex's case. Quantitively, The Archives (which contain most things over six months old) are 30gb's in total. This I think you will agree is a notable collection of work.

There are 11,593 threads viewable on the forums. Once again, I think it would be folly to denote such a figure as not being notable. There are 499 registered members to the forums. This does not include traffic to and from the website by non-members. There are non-members who in fact come to the forums on a weekly basis to read the wrestling shows put up by those who write them, so much so in fact that for a number of months HIW incorporated a ratings system into its News sub forum to keep track of how popular it in fact was.

Before this was removed, HIW scored a 7.1 rating on its last Pay Per View Event (Fictional, of course, and thus free to view). By the forum moderators calculations for rating events, the total score is found by taking the number of hits during the day of posting (bear in mind the shows are available, and actively viewed, for a number of days thereafter) and dividing it by 1000. That means 7,100 views of a single show in a single day. That again would have to be, by a person of sound mind, considered a notable achievement. This should also assuage your concern of there being no third-party sources. Those who are in no way actively involved in the production or competition aspects of the product presented view the product presented regardless.

HIW's name and purpose furthermore do not coincide with any other entries, or indeed possible entries, as High Impact Wrestling is an original and innovative RPG e-community of which there have been several notable spin-offs (including OTB -http://otb.booyah.net/efed- and XW2 -www.wrestlingdistrict.com/forums) over the five years it has been action. Chronologically, one would have to suggest five years of operation is a notable length of time for a non-profit organisation dedicated to encouraging the literary creativity of the wrestling fan.

To use the ongoing example of Lord Of The Rings, I believe the point Matt was trying to make is not that HIW is as popular per se as Lord Of The Rings, but rather that it is chiefly literary fantasy, enjoyed by all who read it. I might remind Englishrose that The Lord Of The Rings is not a popular series of films, rather a popular series of books, of which the films were spin-offs. Again, a philosophical point can be taken from this- one authors work is considered notable, while the work of hundreds of authors is not, viewed by literally thousands, is not. Notability I assume is not relative. Ergo, it is considered presently to equalise the balance. The number of viewings experienced by the average author for a single piece of work might be 26, bear in mind these pieces are approximately 1/200th of the length of one Lord Of The Rings book. Multiply 26 by 200 and one gets 5,200. Proportionately then, while not as popular by any means, one would still reach the conclusion that it is indeed notable.

Verily I am perplexed by the fervour with which the opposition petitions for this pages deletion. After all, philosophically at least, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia for the people, by the people. How would anyone hope to overcome ignorance of anything if the repositories of knowledge did not contain information that which one seeks. Gravity was once but an apple in Isaac Newton’s eye. Evolution, in Darwin’s. If he had been opposed to vigorously by those who disdain that which is unfamiliar to the point of requesting its removal from tomes of knowledge, scientific advancements would have been terribly stunted. Meanwhile, the creativity, innovation, advancement and achievement of generations both young and old as channelled through a specific medium (wrestling) is being shunned as being unworthy of representation herein. It seems in conclusion that the deletion of this page would move against the fundamental precepts upon which the site is based, merely because of a subjective sense of practicality.

Rob—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.51.144 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

          • Typing in "HIW e-fed" brings up HIW as the first and second search results on Google. Typing simply e-fed it is the seventh result. Typing in "High Impact Wrestling" (it is important for the protesting author to realise that HIW is infact an acronym) it is half way down page two. On Alexa: "HIW e-fed" brings up HIW as its first result. Simply "e-fed" the seventh result. Typing in "High Impact Wrestling" it is two thirds of the way down the second page. "HIWsuperstars" finds HIW the first result on both engines. Ergo, your search was the problem. It is important for the protesting author to note the needs of the community that use and view the product. There are literally thousands of e-feds on the net, and thus anyone using Google or Alexa would not search for the letters "HIW" they would search for "e-fed" and whereupon they searched for "e-fed" they would undoubtedly find HIW among the first results.
          • Furthermore I would like to add the following:

"This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)," Ergo, your point is contentious, as is your issue.

"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Indeed, ALL works published are independant of the site itself, save approximately 50% of the total news posts. All writers are independant of the site itself. There are over 30 active writers currently. hence, notable by this criterion.

"The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" Indeed, ALL works published are independant of the site itself, save approximately 50% of the total news posts. All writers are independant of the site itself. There are over 30 active writers currently. hence, notable by this criterion.

Rob—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.51.144 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I am bemused as to why this article has been chosen for deletion. It simply appears as if someone is maliciously and selfishly attempting to remove something that they have no feeling for. Others who look at this page will undoubtedly feel the same way as the main protagonist's arguments are extremely weak.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Furyhumour (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete: This is ridiculous and as a former player of PBeM and PBM wrestling games this is just blatant self promotion. An e-Fed caters to a very specific cross section of people and is not notable by any means. Glad you spent a goo ddeal of tie on character history, but I'm not putting my Role Playing accolades into wikipedia. --NegroSuave 21:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, call me biased, but to be fair being a "former player" of anything doesn't justify what's essentially just an assumption. Regardless of what's apparently so "blatant;" the first of the three pages in question to be created was actually Matt Essex. Thus I feel inclined to ask how it is exactly that one promotes, not an efed, but an efed character? Hopefully your answer clarifies my point, because, you see, the idea, in essence, is to document the character's history and thus give a real-life example of an actual efedding character as well as how that character and any other efedding character's career can indeed develop. As for the page for HIW itself, as far as I'm aware, the same thing applies. It provides the example, documents the history, etc etc. Topping that, considering the uniqueness of the fed in itself, I'd say it's somewhat worthy of being classed as "of note." Nevertheless, anything anywhere can be regarded as not being "of note." I could easily say that as an example, The Lord Of The Rings doesn't quite appeal to everyone, because in all honesty, it doesn't. Sadly, in the case of the support, it's quite unfortunate that apparently as long as the deletion of a page is the initial outlook, no amount of convincing and/or opinion will suffice. Nebzilla.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nebzilla (talk • contribs) 22:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It is self promotion because it is patently forgettable knowledge. Like most roleplaying genre's it is not really important to have an example of the game. Regardless of how popular a Dungeons and Dragons game gets, we do not need an article detailing a character and the time period. As popular as a Minds Eye Theatre game could be Wikipedia doesnt need a detailed article about the setting and the characters. It is simply not necessary. I would yield what unwritten guidelines have been established about other roleplaying games, It is not about any specific game it is all about the genre and maybe you can put your name on a list. Otherwise this is merely complete juvenile arrogance.
    • And as for how it is self promotion. Basically this is the same thing as a "vanity pressing" of a book. While the book was indeed published and the like, its sole purpose is mental masturbation for the author. This is basically the same thing, Mental masturbation. Keep this out of Wikipedia and on a bio webpage where it belongs. If you want this to stand up to the test I am going to start requesting respectable secondary sources to back up all of these claims. NegroSuave 17:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One would hasten of course to argue that masturbation, as a form of pleasurable physical exercise, and in this case of the mental variety, is the singular function of wikipedia. To exercise ones mind by broadening ones basis of knowledge through research. Ergo, such a phrase does not accurately describe the actions of the pages author as either reprehisible or reprimandable. As for a reputable secondary source, I had no clue Matt Essex had a page on wikipedia and was in no way involved in its construction, yet I have visited it and learned many useful things on it which I have gone on to use in writings of my own. This page has been a useful resource to all who have viewed it, and an encyclopaedia should want nothing more than that. Rob.
    • The High Impact Wrestling e-federation does not have 5000 active members, this is true. It may not even have 5000 active viewers. These may be the guidelines, but is it too much to ask for the powers that be here to look at the world of e-fedding in context? It has been pointed out, I believe, on the e-fed page on Wikipedia itself also, that an e-fed typically lasts around a few months before disappearing into the void. As an e-fedder on and off for something like five years I think it is fair to say that the reason this is the case is that a lot of e-feds are poorly designed, poorly staffed and hardly dedicated institutions. I think that is also fair to argue that High Impact Wrestling is the opposite to these things as it maintains a stunningly professional etiquette resulting in, for a literate wrestling fan, outstandingly constructed shows.

The reason HIW deserves a Wikipedia page is because in a declining world of e-fedding it is, you must agree, a beacon. While it does not have 5000 members like a guideline might wish it did, it is a place that is worthy of note for the maybe hundreds of english-speaking e-fedders that exist and sift through the poor quality piles of feds. It is almost undeniably the only e-fed that can state it has been operating for five years and will not close down; that is has and is breeding writers through fair competition rarely seen in the e-fed world. In its context, High Impact Wrestling is the most notable of its breed.

I quote a colleague when I say if "E-wrestling itself deserves to have a Wikipedia page ... so does perhaps the most popular and detailed example of that hobby." Are the guidelines so tight to deny this logic?

Brendizzle 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have speedied High Impact Wrestling as its only content was a template tag (CSD:A3). Stifle (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the other two. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regards content, more was intended to be added, but the editing process was halted by the pages proposal for the deletion. Only with this resolved can those involved with High Impact Wrestling elabourate as they had planned to do on the subject.
  • Delete as per nomination. As an e-feder myself, I don't agree with adding e-wrestling articles (apart from e-wrestling itself) in what should be an encylopedia. It only leads to arguements over notability and self-promotion. --Oakster (Talk) 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an e-fedder, I should hope that you would be sympathetic to such a cause of this. After all, I presume that before you stated your objection you first viewed the forums, whereupon you as an e-fedder would certainly have had to realise that the overwhelming number of arguments already made in this particular cases defense are justification enough for the site to be granted representation herein. If the nomination to delete the pages is made purely on the basis of it causing "arguments" I would remind the protesting author that the discourses undertaken here are strictly discussions. I would further seek to remind the author that without such discussions, no protest could be made for those which rightfully deserve to be here. The absolutionist approach your nomination implies is most worrisome for a peer-edited encyclopaedia. Using the grounds of silencing those whose vase is legitimate for the sake of ease seems counterintuitive to the aims of the site.

Rob

  • Delete. Irrelevant, poorly-written, ego-stroking nonsense. McPhail 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • irrelevant? to what? to whom? you? isn't that subjectivity? and isn't the point of making wikipedia a user-maintained community to facilitate many perspectives on things? (this being a perfect example) and as for poorly-written, you should really read the material in question before making sweeping statements like that. I assure you that in HIW, some of the writers are quite exceptional in character-driven dialogue. you may disagree, you don't like it, fine, we all understand that. however there are plenty of people who do. does it harm you (or in fact, any single person in the whole universe) to allow these pages to exist? if the answer is yes I question your mental stability, if the answer is no then what the bloody hell are we arguing about? this whole campaign for deletion just strikes me as utterly arbitrary, as many often say "we weren't hurting anyone" metaphysical 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take offense to poorly written. One would do well to actually read the arguments heretofore stated before questioning the quality of the writing with which the objectors state their side. Furthermore, it has not at any point been stated that the quality of writing on any page included on wikipedia must meet a certain 'verbose' criterion, though I am fairly sure that the current author could easily make such a bar. If I may draw your attention a fact earlier raised though not in the same context, it perplexes the current author how precisely one would go about stroking the ego of a fictional character. Equally, if only to match the pedantry of your objection, the page and its contents all make perfect sense. Any failure to percieve such sense would be surely the fault only of the protesting author. A quandry to state then that what is poorly written is beyond the protesting authors comprehension? Perhaps one should be more reserved with ones sweeping statements when first you decide to make them against a respectable and legitimate use of this page.

Rob

Personally, as an e-fedder, I feel this has a right to be here. And why? This is an encyclopedia, and this simply gives a clear view of what the word "conflict" is due to the commotion. It is a valuable information source. Also, to understand that Matt Essex is not real, people must have been reading to the bottom. This shows it has been made in a clear interesting manner and is a valuable information source to show the talents of e-fedders in a unique interesting way.

Ryan


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edith (biblical)[edit]

not notable, pure speculation, biblecruft compare to Adina (Biblical name) where at least there is one line in the Bible that mentions Adina, here none mentions Edith Carlossuarez46 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ("Alleged name"? Who alleges this? And if they did, is it notable that they did?) Henning Makholm 22:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lot's wife was never named, and every source I can find says the name "Edith" is Teutonic or Anglo-Saxon in origin, not Hebraic. Fan1967 22:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967 for all we know her name was Morton. Also uncited so original research. --Tollwutig 16:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as contextless substub. Note that it is referenced (1907 Nuttall's). Stifle (talk) 23:31, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The demented random guy podcast[edit]

Does not pass WP:WEB.rehpotsirhc 18:22, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LUPSA Presidents[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurentian University Model Parliament, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Roche, Sudbury.

Non-notable officer's position for non-notable university club that does not even currently have its own article, possible fail under WP:VAIN. New user has created several related articles about Laurentian University and the club of which he's the current president and one about himself, several of which have been nominated for AfD. RGTraynor 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. -- JamesTeterenko 19:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as vanity: The notability of the club is weak, one officer of the club clearly does not qualify, unless the club president has ex officio some unique role. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Peter Grey 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tomb Ride My Talk 22:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 10:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per db-bio - pm_shef 04:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a speedy, since it's not actually a bio article, it's an article about an office that someone might hold, but it's clearly a minor club. This material, while well-written, belongs on their own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Hill[edit]

Non-notable; Scrabble player who appeared in one small documentary. Not a National or World champion. Qaqaq 18:24, 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 (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. cranky[edit]

WP:WEB fail, possibly vanity page. rehpotsirhc 18:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as it is neither a vanity page, nor does it fail WP:WEB. Criteria 1 of WP:WEB is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Mr. Cranky has been written about by Vanity Fair, the New York Times, and The Guardian, among others. It's been around since at least 1999. dirtside 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here. I can only find the Guardian article, and it clearly qualifies as trivial coverage under WP:WEB. rehpotsirhc 19:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some quick searches turned up other newspaper stories about Mr. Cranky, one of which is here. Unfortunately, most old newspaper stories require payment to access, so it's hard to get enough details to verify whether or not it's "nontrivial." Although I would submit that being written about by the New York Times is essentially nontrivial by definition. Here's a set of audio interviews with Mr. Cranky (real name Jason Katzman) in Wired, although it's from 2000 and the MP3 links are broken. There seem to be a lot of other random brief articles and mentions, as well (Google "Jason Katzman" "cranky"); enough that I think the quantity would help make up for whatever "triviality" they possess.
What if the article was about Jason Katzman instead, or about Cranky-as-person rather than Cranky-as-website? There are plenty of far more trivial web-content-only articles on Wikipedia that have as much or less notability than Mr. Cranky (a number of webcomics, for example). (Forgive (and feel free to fix) my crappy indentation formatting here, this is my first deletion candidate article). dirtside 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per dirtside and move to Mr. Cranky. A popular web site with large fan following (check the messages at the end of each movie review) and he's got a published book based on the site. GT 07:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book is the deciding factor for me. -Colin Kimbrell 20:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already knew about the book, thanks, and if you can get people to pay actual money for a printed copy of stuff you gave away for free on the web then I think that speaks pretty well for your notability. -Colin Kimbrell 00:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. I don't see verifiable evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as lies lies LIES. DS 22:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlazAid[edit]

This music festival gets exactly zero Google hits; even Sudbury's own newspapers have never written about it. And for something which claims to be controversial, the lack of any verifiable controversy is suspicious. And given that we're talking about the city where I grew up, I can personally vouch for the fact that the Plaza Hotel is not large enough to host four famous rock bands (even ones who are a bit past their commercial prime) and Elisha Cuthbert — it's a skeezy little motel on a residential side street. I'll withdraw the nomination if somebody can show a real source; but right now it's unverifiable and most likely a hoax. Delete. Bearcat 18:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I also believe that it is a hoax. --Several Times 19:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Rock festivals always draw at least some media attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per above Anger22 19:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tagged it as a ("suspected") hoax. Samaritan 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cort5433 20:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nuke, eradicate as per nom Tyhopho 21:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: Someone keeps removing the deletion tags for this articel. 68.39.174.238 21:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now ive actually had to revert this page as well due to Frank Sorvinchuk blanking it Tyhopho 00:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Dyson (appliances). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyson DC15[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted Sturgeonslawyer 19:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm recommending this and several related articles for deletion as they seem to me to be advertisements for the products of the Dyson company. Prior to making this recommendation, I searched for articles about similar products, such as Hoover and Electrolux vacuum cleaners, to see if these articles were in line with Wiki community standards. They do not seem to be.

I stumbled upon this article by accident, playing with the "random article" button. The full list of articles I intend to recommend for deletion include the articles on the Dyson DC01, Dyson DC02, Dyson DC14, Dyson DC15, and Dyson G Force. If you believe these articles have valid content, please consider moving them to the Dyson (appliances) article, which will bring matters more in line with similar companies's products.

  • Merge into a List of Dyson appliances article, with no prejudice towards splitting things off if they ever get big. --Rory096(block) 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just a "Products" section in the Dyson (appliances) article? I don't see enough non-advertising-like content on all five articles combined to warrant a full article on its own. Sturgeon's Lawyer

  • KEEP. This is the FIRST of a product type. Would we delete a page on the model T? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tolliver.4 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. Some of these products have been "reproduced" by other manufacturers and a reference to the original model that was duplicated is important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.69.235.51 (talk • contribs) .
  • Does anybody care to bet that those last two comments were not added by employees/officers of Dyson? Let's be clear: this is not a product with the historic value of the Model T.

But assuming for the sake of argument that it was, would the unsigned persons who made those comments object if we removed the other Dyson product articles--Sturgeonslawyer 23:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)?Sturgeon's Lawyer

  • Merge and redirect all five to Dyson (appliances). If in future there's enough information to warrant a separate list of appliances or even pages for each appliance do it then, but there isn't that much content yet. --Pak21 11:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn and redirected; I didn't realize an article already exists. --Rory096(block) 20:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobobo-bobo-bobo[edit]

Non notable game... I think. Rory096(block) 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and possibly imaginary? --Several Times 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo. Kotepho 19:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, in case someone makes a boo-boo. PJM 20:00, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will schillinger[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page JPadron 19:24, 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 merge to The Sims. Thryduulf 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims Resource[edit]

Non-notable website, prod tag apparently removed by site founder. Objectivist-C 19:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Maxis has mentioned the site quite a few times, and they have gotten a interview with the news back with the Hot Coffee contro: You know, reporters asking the '31337 modderzzzz' about it. I'll try and dig it up. --Avillia 19:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as Maxis is concerned, the site is well recognized and is listed as a top fansite in the Maxis website. Maxis had also conducted an interview with the site's operator (likely prior to the release of Sims 2 in 2004), which is available here. That's all that I can dig up. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 12:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
  • Relisting; this hasn't moved in 7 days. No vote. Alphax τεχ 00:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. Brian G. Crawford 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Alexa rank of 7,938 and the comment from ２５ give this at least some faint smell of notability. I'd call it gamecruft though. - Hirudo 02:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't just some ol' fansite. I'd vote to delete a vanity article for a non-notable fansite in the blink of an eye. This site, however, is one of the (if not THE) best known non-official websites for this insanely popular game. --Icarus 06:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This site deserves a mention in the Sims article, but not an article in its own right. I see so many fan sites up on AfD, most of them should really just be mentions on the article of their subject. Nothing wrong in redirecting it there. TH 08:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Sims/link from The Sims 2. Much of the content of the article seems to be the site T+Cs, which aren't needed on WP. —Whouk (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Sims/link from The Sims 2 as above. DavidH 09:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per TH. Lundse 10:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into The Sims. --Eivindt@c 12:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or failing that, Merge per Whouk. Kuzaar 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete FrancisTyers 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Beth Sallay Effect[edit]

The article claims to describe the phenomenon of a named woman who added fradulent filmography about herself to various online sources and had it propagate between sites that copied off each other. It purports to make a point about the reliability of internet information, but ironically it is itself completely unsourced. ((unsourced)) tags have been removed from the articles more than once, and the authors have been unable or unwilling to provide respectable sources for the claims in the article, despite repeated requests (see also the talk page). Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Henning Makholm 19:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you google as "Elizabeth Sallay" instead of Beth you do find a large number of entries for an "uncredited" performer in a variety of TV and film projects. Looks like IMDB has her cleaned out (they have a listing for her but no credits) but all sorts of other sites have her as a performer in all kinds of things. Fan1967 20:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just how do you think such results counts as respectable sources for the central claims in the article: that she (a) did not actually perform in these projects, and (b) herself fradulently added her name to various sources? Without verifiable sources, there is no telling whether this article is not just an attempt to defame an real bit part actor. Henning Makholm 20:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of anyone other than you claiming fraud... and that is a very serious legal charge. I'd be interested in your sources for the facts stated in the article being fraud if true. I've reread the article, and don't find any claim of fraud at all, much less as the central point. But the laws may be different in your country.
Keep. There is legitimate question of whether or not it is wikipedia material (as I have said before), however the reasons for the deletion (the facts being wrong) are bogus. IMDB cleaned her out because the credits were fake. I personally have [As Henning is very well aware] given a talk on the effect here last year. (By the way , my page here gives the reason that I didn't write a page on the effect, commentary that has been there since last year) But I don't think that there is any reaonable doubt that it was a hoax. (And obviously IMDB didn't think there was doubt either either.) And there is the common sense point that the filming of several of the movies were in geographic different areas at the same time... :) And a look at the parts Henning alleges may be some specific "real bit part actor" clearly don't look like each other. Disclaimer: I've been following the project for years with great humor, and know her personally, so my opinion is biased. Nahaj 03:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The facts may or may not be bogus. The problem is that they seem to be unverifiable. Can you provide any citations or publications to support the story? The fact that you know her personally and can personally vouch for the story does not qualify as a reliable source. - Fan1967 04:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and also if she's uncredited she's not verifiable nor notable ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid Lexis/Nexis doesn't come up with anything, suggesting the phenomenon is possibly not notable and definitely not verifiable. Can you provide specific reliable independent coverage of the story? Otherwise delete. Thatcher131 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think many people might regard it as notable, if it could be verified. Certainly we've seen a lot of suspicious "uncredited" credits on aspiring actors. Maybe if she can document and publish her results, the story would get picked up, and this could legitimately be recreated. Looks like it fails both notability and verifiability right now. Fan1967 16:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am obviously in favor of keeping it but I think the topic needs more research. I would like to get a response from some of the sites, and including imdb, who have plagarized this info and see their view but I doubt they would be willing to do so. I plan on doing a write-up and possibly posting it on Wikipedia again. FYI, if there is any doubt that I actually did this, yes, my name is uncommon so there isn't another 'Elizabeth Sallay'; actress I am attempting to libel. It's not difficult to do this via imdb either as I have added some of my friends to various movie projects, also as 'uncredited' and their listing has yet to be pulled. BlueTrinity 09:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the use of first person here indicate that BlueTrinity is the "Beth Sallay" of the article? If so, the article fails WP:OR as well as of [[WP:V]. Wikipedia is not a publication forum for original research. Henning Makholm 03:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Bluetrinity is not Beth Sallay, her plan violates policy on Original Research. The way to go about this is to get the story published somewhere else first (Wired, Slate, etc); then an editor, not necessarily you, could cite that here. Wikipedia is a compilation/summary of things published elsewhere, not a publisher of original content. Thatcher131 15:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move; now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japanese Bibliography/Imperial Japan and its colonies. – Alphax τεχ 01:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography on Imperial Japan and its colonies[edit]

There is no reason to believe that this is a breakout article of references. Looking at the April 14, 2005 version and the April 9, 2005 version of the Empire of Japan article, these references were not in that article. So this article is strictly a bibligoraphy. A collection of sources for someone who wants more information.Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Note that this article went through a previous AfD (or rather, a VfD) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography on Imperial Japan and its exterior provinces and resulted in a no-consensus keep. Pepsidrinka 20:01, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zarlengo[edit]

Looks like a vanity article - created by fairly new editors who have been going around creating articles about this person's recent books, the publishing company they have created, and their local church school (and adding links to those articles from more normal articles) - the articles look like adverts. Clinkophonist 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of his information is veriviable. The publishing compnay and church are real. Check again.

I'm not questioning the factuality, I'm questioning the notability, and the fact that you shouldn't write articles about yourself, your friends, or your work associates, nor about books you wrote, or theological theories you invented. Clinkophonist 20:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reagrding the wikipedia entry I made, I am Dallas Theological Seminary student. I was aasigned to read these books, as well as other books on this topic. I also have done a study on the author, as a result I made the entries that are in fact notable.

  • Delete per nomination. Articles on the non-notable author (Michael Zarlengo) and his two books have all been nominated for deletion. If the author's article survives, the two books should at least be merged into the main article. Engineer Bob 23:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, walled garden of vanity/minor subjects. If kept, de-wikify the links - it's full of links to irrelevant articles. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Daniel Akin[edit]

Looks like a vanity article - created by fairly new editors who have been going around creating articles about this person's recent books, the publishing company they have created, and their local church school (and adding links to those articles from more normal articles) - the articles look like adverts. Clinkophonist 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete It is a basic summary of an American higher education institutions president. It has no advertisements mentioned, though he is a published author. I think this is appropriate entry, especially for those interested in the Southern Baptist Convention's educational Institutions. WJBA 04:10, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Works[edit]

Looks like a vanity article - created by fairly new editors who have been going around creating articles about this person's recent books, the publishing company they have created, and their local church school (and adding links to those articles from more normal articles) - the articles look like adverts. Clinkophonist 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

go to faithworksonline.com. They do have their own website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.152.129 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pray Like This[edit]

Looks like a vanity article - an advert for a non notable book created by fairly new editors who have been going around creating articles about Michael Zarlengo's recent books (and adding links to those articles from more normal articles) - the articles look like adverts. Clinkophonist 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Articles on the non-notable author (Michael Zarlengo) and his two books have all been nominated for deletion. If the author's article survives, the two books should at least be merged into the main article. Engineer Bob 23:42, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabernacle Gifts[edit]

Looks like a vanity article - created by fairly new editors who have been going around creating articles about this person's recent books, the publishing company they have created, and their local church school (and adding links to those articles from more normal articles) - the articles look like adverts. Clinkophonist 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not established; no verification offered. Bucketsofg 22:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Articles on the non-notable author (Michael Zarlengo) and his two books have all been nominated for deletion. If the author's article survives, the two books should at least be merged into the main article. Engineer Bob 23:40, 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. Flowerparty☀ 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College of Biblical Studies[edit]

Looks like a vanity article - created by fairly new editors who have been going around creating articles about this person's recent books, the publishing company they have created, and their local church school (and adding links to those articles from more normal articles) - the articles look like adverts. Clinkophonist 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As the article now stands, it is little more than advertisement. Bucketsofg 22:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looking at google, seems to be a real educational facility, ergo an automatic keep. Jcuk 00:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 08:21, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snotgurgle[edit]

Contextless neologism, bordering on nonsense. Google shows 137 unique hits, without pinpointing this as fancruft relating to any particular fictional universe. Among the first hits is a username on some online forum, so this may be an attack page, but I doubt it. Article was tagged for speedy deletion, which admin downgraded to prod. Unsurprisingly, the article creator removed the prod without comment. Now taking here. Sigh. Henning Makholm 20:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foxwood Strippers[edit]

On the practice of hiring strippers for bachelor parties at a particular casino. "Foxwood strippers" has only 7 (seven) unique Google hits, suggesting that this particular phenomenon is deeply non-notable. Was prodded as advertisement (for a particular stripper agency linked to in the article), but the creator (whose only logged contribtion is creating the article) removed the prod without comment. Delete nn/spam. Henning Makholm 20:14, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edict Edict[edit]

nn magazine. Rory096(block) 20:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, isn't notable enough. Gwernol 21:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Student magazines are only notable if concrete cause for notability can be cited. Henning Makholm 21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a concrete cause for notability because it is of the first kind of magazine published by inter university students in India.It is pioneer in the field. Again, there is much comprtition among these Universities and Students who study in Different Univerities but in one point they agree that this type of magazine is required to enhance the academic environment in this country —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chamatkaribaba (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete as unimportant minor magazine. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 

delete. DS 21:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia League[edit]

I was going to try to clean this article up but, reading through, realized the entire article is conjecture based on what the article readily admits is a failed attempt by a handful of student councils and if I deleted the crystall-ballism, there would be nothing left of the article. MagnoliaLeague.com, from which most of this is based, is a sort of hypothetical fantasy site which loudly states it's under construction. This seems like a semi-vanity article for promoting the premise of the Magnolia League, and perhaps the website, indirectly. If there's ever any actual, official movement on this front it should come back, but as it stands.... Delete. JDoorjam Talk 20:27, 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 on the article, remove entry from template. Kusma (討論) 01:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis of 2020[edit]

This article presents no information other than two writers have decided that there will be a Crisis of 2020 Generation. Useless non-notable speculation that has somehow made its way onto (and muddies up) the Generational table/template (e.g. see Lost Generation). Madman 20:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OR, Crystal ball etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal ballism. Henning Makholm 21:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. BryanG 21:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Generations (book) or keep, I guess I should've looked closer at it than I did. My mistake. However, as I noted below, this should be removed from Template:Generations as potentially confusing to readers. BryanG 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this stub exists in the context of the article series covering Strauss and Howe's survey of historical generations, and is an extrapolation of the historical patterns they observe. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball doesn't seem to apply, as the article discusses a verifiable scholarly work, rather than being original research. The stub can be expanded by covering their arguments for this prediction.--Nectar 00:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball says "Expected future events should only be included if the event is . . . almost certain to take place." and the "2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics.".Madman 13:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article merely reports a published scholarly theory (see WP:V), and that should be the end of this issue.--Nectar 14:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page is infomation about a theory. An odd one but a theory nonetheless. See Flat Earth. Kansaikiwi 13:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • OK, I'll buy that, but since it's a theory, it should be removed from Template:Generations at least. It's potentially confusing for readers to put a theoretical generation in the same template as generations that definitely occurred. BryanG 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, no indications as to the notability of this theory. Remove from template, at any rate. Sandstein 10:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I maintain my keep vote but take out the template. Maybe the guys who made the theory need their own template. Kansaikiwi 15:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at the very least remove from Generational table/template. How can you write an article about generational history and include someone's predictions for the future. Has this guy got a time machine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel bagshaw (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from table only theories are good. I enjoyed reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Zafar (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 April 2006
  • Me again, the nominator. If someone provides some content (other than the authors predict a Crisis in 2020, like what kind, etc etc), then I can see a Keep on the article, but I very much believe we need to Delete from the template/table. Thanks 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Generations (book). Because all the articles in the American Generations series express the opinion of Strauss and Howe. It is an interesting opinion though, but it this way it is somewhat misleading, beacause one might not understand in the begining that these are theories of only two people. --212.72.201.199

  • Keep article, delete from template seems to be the consensus. Alba 14:01, 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.
Kusma (討論) 01:01, 21 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 userfy. – Alphax τεχ 02:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denny fyck[edit]

non notable vanity article, unverifiable claims to single notability claim, and totally unencylopedic. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:53, 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 as recreation of previously deleted material and article whose only content is links elsewhere (and a request not to delete). Stifle (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P-Unit[edit]

Is a princeton university based parody group, does not meet WP:BAND or WP:BIO ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:12, 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 Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March turbo[edit]

Very, very, very bad formatting (almost unreadable), possible copy+paste.--Zxcvbnm 21:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless it gets fixed *real* quick - I can't even fiugure what this is about - & smells of poss copyvio as well due to appearing to be cut&paste.Bridesmill 22:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incomprehensible. Almost reads like a cut and paste from a foreign language that was run through a machine translator. Fan1967 22:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • March turbo

The exhibition origin did De from my own Brog article to Omoto's writing and an original original. Please refer to UserCarNoteID=77289 URL. It is proof. ･Indication rule Wikipedia GFDL OK 1 and public organization contribution condition of condition. Only "Use with GFDL" is allowed. Only condition 2(I) and the original person in question can use the original, and contribute. It needing becomes condition 2(Ro) and a pertinent matter. It allows it the encouragement as for the postscript and the retouch. Or, it can be a reprint by the origin of this original person in question allowance.　--ek-10st Toyama 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)ek-10stとやま/ek-10st Toyama[reply]

↑私の母国語、J「日本語」で記しますと、 このマーチターボの記事は私が自分のブログから出典しています。 GFDL許可もページに 貼っています。確かに英文は上手くありませんが、 そちらのベテランな、どなたかに加筆依頼しようかと考えていました。 お願いですから削除依頼は少し考えなおして下さい。 --219.114.63.247 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)ダブルチャージクラブ、ek-10stとやま「Toyama」[reply]

  • Delete. Apparently done in good faith, this nonetheless fails. Madman 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely incomprehensible, as per above.--Jslasher 00:15, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren chen[edit]

Appears to be hoax and/or db-attack on a "Darren Chen". Earlier version copy&pasted from Hikikomori. Article contents not supported by googling for "Darren Chen". Speedy deletion contested. Weregerbil 21:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as attack page. Fan1967 22:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. Kinda sorta is an attack page. Kotepho 01:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page and non-notable person with no context. Same author as Ian James below. Thatcher131 03:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism (at best). Stifle (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as ((nn-bio)), and ((db-nocontext)), and probably ((db-attack)) as well. Take your pick. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian James[edit]

Vaninonsense. Speedy deletion contested with the template ((Fuck You)) (a template that Wikipedia appears to be missing at the moment). Weregerbil 21:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and now someone is going to create it per WP:BEANS. Kotepho 01:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The batteries in Ian's PSP must have been dead today. Thatcher131 02:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Contested speedies don't need to be brought to AFD, as long as the article still clearly meets the WP:CSD. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 

delete. DS 21:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haruhiism[edit]

Non-notable religion worshipping anime characters. Number of google hits: "haruhiism" 7, "haruhiist(s)" 0. Only source for the religion is a single blog entry [29]. Prod contested. Weregerbil 21:47, 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 - FrancisTyers 22:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus christian nightbase[edit]

Non-notable, no references--Zxcvbnm 21:50, 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 ℬastique 20:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karmacoda[edit]

This is just an attempt to get free publicity for a band: the only editor of the page (aside from myself and a bot)is the author of the bands official webpage. Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 22:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the copyright owner of the bio material used in this article and I give permission for it to be used here. Brett Crockett —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rimbaud234 (talk • contribs) .

Keep. Google scored 22,300 hits. Seems notable enough to me. :Please see Wikipedia:Notability (music) ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 22:26, 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. Kusma (討論) 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs Mug[edit]

The article is about a prop (a coffee mug with a Cubs logo) named "Cubby" that appears in the series 24. The article was originally under Cubby, but a consensus was reached to merge the data with 24 and redirect there. Bucketsofg 22:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I know that it's a prop, but it is the only prop that has made continuous appearances on the show. Besides, what's really wrong with having a page about it? Does it really make that much of a difference? I mean, come on, there's pages here about characters that made a total of 3 appearances on the show and no one else seems to care. Is it really that much to ask of you to keep this page? tonyismyhero
  • comment. Tonyismyhero is the creator of Cubs Mug and Cubby. Bucketsofg 22:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment You know what? This really isn't worth arguing about... If it really bugs you that much, just delete it. tonyismyhero


  • Merge like it was supposed to be w/ 24 and then Delete - almost tempted to WP:Speedy (Gen 4) on account of failing to adhere to prior consensus. Fancruft, nonencyclopedic. Bridesmill 22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extremely minor 24cruft. Fan1967 22:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Bridesmill M2K e 22:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't even see this being useful as a redirect. Kotepho 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cubs Mug. Redirect Cubby if it is found the term is in common usage, else Delete. -- Chuq 03:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. I think that this can be speedied now that its author, tonyismyhero has agreed to deletion (see his comment above). Bucketsofg 13:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The info on the mug is already in the Trivia section of 24 and the Tony article anyway. Oh, and giving it an infobox? Heh. -- gakon5 21:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think there's anything wrong with this page. Actually, it's a cute idea. And it's not like it's hurting anyone or getting in anyone's way. -- jessonik 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.82.3 (talk • contribs) [reply]
comment. The signature in above comment was manually created by 151.198.82.3; there does not seem to be any user named jessonik. (Note to 151.198.82.31/jessonik: the opinions of new accounts and IP-address-only accounts are discounted in these discussions. It is easy to register to get an account. Bucketsofg 16:26, 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 no consensus. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John D'Agata[edit]

This article is a mixture of biography and likely slander. It might possibly be saved, but the subject may not be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. It was put up for speedy deletion, but this was contested on the discussion page. No vote. gadfium 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think D'Agata should be considered "notable." He's simply a brilliant writer, and has made important contributions to creative nonfiction. At best, he's often credited with inventing the "lyric essay" (this isn't true; it's a form with a long tradition, but the fact that the misattribution is so prevalent [read a profile of him that doesn't mention it] is testament to his role in renewing the essay as literature. At worst, he's won major awards (a PEN) and regularly travels the country because he's in demand as a lecturer, workshopper, and general bright young thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.56.250.181 (talk • contribs) .

Keep - I think it needs cleanup, rather than deletion. There may be hoax elements to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.93.48 (talk • contribs) .

  • Speedy Delete nonsense, no context, nn.Bridesmill 22:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROFTEST; possible attack page. Bucketsofg 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delete the nonsense. I believe he satisfies the notability criteria "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" [30] -- he has several books listed at Amazon ([31]). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments by Fang Aili. -- Kicking222 22:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Factor[edit]

This article is clearly a vanity page for a group created by User:Mordacai Hardcastle. When I suggested it for PROD, Mordacai immediately added a 'notice' that the article was not a vanity page. He then removed the PROD template after adding another paragraph and leaving the remaining text unchanged. Diagonalfish 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete nn vanity, WP:BAI, WP:SPEEDY7.Bridesmill 22:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete clearly a vanity page despite its "disclaimer". Point #1 of WP:BAI is "Yourself or your organization" - Vedexent 17:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, I especially like the 'for educational purposes only.' Diagonalfish 23:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "for educational purposes only, as seen on TV, not for sale in the state of Kansas, do not operate heavy machinery after use, void where prohibited by law, do not inflate above 30psi" :D - Vedexent 00:00, 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. DS 21:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small penis humiliation[edit]

Appears to be a hoax. Mentions psychologists, but does not provide sources or links. Google search links to porn sites and link/meta crawlers, no encyclopedic info found. Prior AfD was no consensus. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Links are a paysite, a broken link, and a BBC report which discusses small penises but /not/ SPH. No professional refs; only pornsites. Porncruft. Bridesmill 22:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as likely hoax or wishful thinking. Bucketsofg 23:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haw haw haw, very jocular. Delete. -- Hoary 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hawkestone 06:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this article is mortally compromised by a lack of good sources, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. References to publications on penile size per se do not do anything to support the article; the references must document the specific phenomenon it is claimed exists. If there are no reputable published sources, writing about the subject from personal experience, or based on postings on various blogs/websites/pornsites/other stuff that does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, violates the no original research policy. In simple terms, a subject on which there are no high quality publications cannot be written up in an encyclopedia. —Encephalon 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all above. I didn't see any valid reasons for keeping in the last AFD so I think it should have been deleted then. Шизомби 23:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 19:55, 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. Chick Bowen 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys 1996[edit]

The content of this article has been merged into the main article about the rugby team, and this article was nominated for speedy deletion, but doesn't actually qualify under any of the CSDs, so I punted it here. As the speedy nom says, this really doesn't make for a good redir, and the usable content has been integrated where appropriate. Delete. JDoorjam Talk 22:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -- Saberwyn 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, if there has been a merge then we must retain a redirect for GFDL compliance. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete company, userfy founder. — FireFox (υ|τ) 12:17, 23 April 2006

Mpower Development, Mark Edwards (Entrepreneur)[edit]

Non notable company and its founder. Rory096(block) 22:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. No claims in Mpower Development meeting WP:CORP and googling doesn't suggest notability; Mark Edwards (Entrepreneur) has nothing besides founding the company. Weregerbil 21:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mpower Development and userfy Mark Edwards. Currently a walled garden - each page depends entirely on the other for notability. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen Jenkins[edit]

listing now --Melaen 22:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, NFL players are notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NFL player who's played in just about every game for his team for the last two years. Fan1967 22:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above, notable athleat --lightdarkness (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable athLETE. Is it just me, or did the nominator not give a reason to delete? --Rory096(block) 22:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was tagged on 5 April for AfD by 68.217.159.203 (talk · contribs). Looks like Melaen just picked up the orphan nomination. Looks like at the same time the anon did the same for other football players: Tony Boselli, Derick Armstrong, Bennie Joppru, Todd France, Leeman Bennett, Chad Cota and Idrees Bashir. Most of the AfD tags were reverted by other editors. Someone created the discussion for Bashir's AfD yesterday (with the note "I was wondering why the 'Idrees Bashir' article was being considered for deletion"). Cota's AfD is still incomplete. Fan1967 23:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO and general precedent. --Rob 23:32, 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 through PROD. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retard Disco[edit]

Non-notable, with only 352 unique Googles (that number might change a bit from time to time). The article does not have any assertion of how the record label is significant. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 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 

delete. DS 21:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soni's theorem[edit]

trivial observation; dubious name. If it could be demonstrated that this is a genuinely used name, I suppose the article could stay, though I'd probably suggest a merge to elementary algebra in that case. --Trovatore 22:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This "theorem" is something one would expect any high-school student to derive in a moment, and if they're at all mathematically inclined, one would expect them to have figured it out without ever having heard it mentioned. Some things that are simple and obvious deserve articles (e.g., the "law of trichotomy", because one can consider in which structures it holds and in which it does not, etc.). But this is not of that sort. Would the author of this article please tell us who "Soni" is? Michael Hardy 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a rather simple observation, that contrary to the article author's claims, is in fact used widely outside of the Art of Problem Solving community. In fact, it is a most basic theorem of arithmetic progressions. The fact that it was used in a Duke Math Meet is not notable. Nor is the fact that I derived this theorem years ago and used it in a class. Perhaps most importantly, I have studied number theory (formally and informally), and I have never run across this fact being referred to as "Soni's theorem". Perhaps Soni was some ancient mathematician who stated this theorem somehow without the benefit of say, mathematical symbols, or in any case, long enough ago that this was some kind of breakthrough. But I doubt it. --C S (Talk) 23:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anything, the formula appears to be a definition of the nth term of an arithmetic sequence. In fact, the very first equation of the current version of arithmetic sequence is barely distinguishable from the formula given here. Dmharvey 23:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per those guys. Rubbish. Kotepho 01:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a legit math formula, however, I suggest that maybe it be merged with something else. Mysmartmouth 23:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I suggest, like Trovatore, that this article be merged with another topic, preferably elementary algebra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysmartmouth (talk • contribs)
    • Mysmartmouth, it seems like you changed your mind from "keep" to "merge". Can you clarify? --C S (Talk) 03:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What exactly is mergable from the article anyway? The formula which is already in arithmetic progression? What other content is there, that is valid and of utility? BTW, I suggest to Mysmartmouth that trying to insert mention of "Soni's theorem" into arithmetic progression is not wise and will not save the article. --C S (Talk) 04:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable no google hits for the name and is trivially derivable. --Richard Clegg 07:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was hunt down the creators of the article and wipe them from the face of the planet (and, while we're at it, delete the article). DS 21:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiseman scale[edit]

just read it Bottesini 22:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox (υ|τ) 12:15, 23 April 2006

Mark nernberg[edit]

Non notable hacker, despite claims to notability. Only 440 Ghits, barely more than me, and 0 Gnews hits. Rory096(block) 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. --Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 23:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has claims of notabilty. Tag it ((unsourced)) or something. Kotepho 01:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It claims notability, which is why it's not a speedy candidate, but the Ghits don't lie; he's probably not notable. --Rory096(block) 18:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a non-notable entry.--Jslasher 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pease[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable; only 31 Ghits. Rory096(block) 23:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No notability other than son-of, father-of another person. That by itself doesn't assert notability. --Ragib 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
    1. He was at cambridge during a the period of early genetics, and since Cambridge was the pioneer of study of genetics with Punnett, Bateson and later Fisher, Haldane, etc, he was there when it all happened. You're unlikely to find much about him today because of the scarcity of such information, but it can be verified.
    2. Secondly, he is somewhat of a missing link between three important families, namely the Huxleys, the Peases (Quakers from the North East) and the Wedgwoods (potters); merging the info into the article on his relatives just overbalances their articles.
    3. Thirdly, the search which yields "31" google hits is misleading because it is too restricted — Dunc|☺ 09:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add to. He is of sufficient noteworthiness to have an article here -- in fact he is far more worthy of an article than many of the subject of bios puffing up the tally of English articles. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FeloniousMonk 16:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ragib. Unfortunately, being a POW doesn't make you notable. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 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 no consensus = keep. — FireFox (υ|τ) 12:13, 23 April 2006

Muuhda[edit]

Doesn't appear to be a notable band with only 1250 Ghits, though it does appear to make some claims towards notability, so it's not worth a speedy. Rory096(block) 23:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After doing some research myself, they actually seem to be fairly notable. The article certainly needs revision, however. -Bottesini
    • Would you be so kind as to provide the sources you used to come to this conclusion? -- Saberwyn 02:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the myspace test. Stifle (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While they do have a page on Myspace, their main website appears to be at their own domain, for what it's worth. --Rory096(block) 18:35, 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 Speedy delete as a short article with little or no context. Stifle (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searching the Scriptures[edit]

Articles on the author (Michael Zarlengo) and both books in this supposedly 12-book series have been nominated for deletion as non-notable. Engineer Bob 23:47, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fighting game terms[edit]

Transwikied to Transwiki:List_of_fighting_game_terms, no longer needed in Wikipedia--Zxcvbnm 23:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, encylopedic, has far too much information for a dictionary. Kappa 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It is actually a list of dictionary terms, each needs their own Wiktionary article.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
  2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
  3. A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.
    — WP:NOT
--Zxcvbnm 00:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is essentially a collection of short encylopedia articles, not just definitions. Anyway as you are aware, Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields. Kappa 00:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article encourages original research and the saturation of an unecyclopediac article. Wikitionary is present for a reason. -ZeroTalk 08:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a true "textbook deletion". For once we specifically have a rule saying that a specific class of articles should not exist, and this article is a perfect example of that class. Next, please. Stevage 11:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zxcvbnm and Stevage. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It covers not just terms but also elements of strategies, various glitches, and things of the like; it probably should be expanded to something like "fighting game general terms and strategies" though... right now as far as stuff like strategy content goes, it's just the basic level of it all (IE things like wavedashing are generally used as parts of strategies, but alone aren't technically a "strategy"). In short: keep, but expand it to include more than just terms at the basic level... also try to keep it from game-specific examples, and more towards things that are common or are existant in a number of fighting games. MadLordOfMilk 17:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC) **EDIT** Or, this could be moved to say Wikibooks... **/EDIT**[reply]
User only has two edits. [32] -ZeroTalk 19:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not gamefaqs.com or a dictionary. Stifle (talk) 23:38, 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 Redirected to Halloween.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haloween[edit]

Unencyclopedic, people playing video games and eating pizza does not belong in an encyclopedia. Vanity page. RobLinwood 23:54, 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 Redirected to Death.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deth[edit]

"deth" is misspelled "death", and means "I killed you"? Who would have thought... It looks like a dictionary definition to me. Austrian 23:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unencyclopedic - non-notable and unsourced; likely unverifiable. Maybe, just maybe, you could Redirect to Death, but only if verified sources can be provided. Gwernol 00:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to death. You don't need sources for that (unless you want to merge it). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Gwernol. RexNL 10:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Death, as a common misspelling. No merge. -Colin Kimbrell 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this obvious junk and redirect to death. Grandmasterka 23:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More