< April 14 April 16 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 15[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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phases of speech[edit]

The article is essentially a dictionary definition. Also, I have been unable to verify that the term is used in this way outsided of Wikipedia and the source listed. The results I found concerned speech development or the phases of speech technology. -- Kjkolb 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If nobody knows how to merge the article, the move it to author's userspace and leave a note inviting himer to put the material back in articlespace (either by merging or by making another article) with more detail and with some assertion of notability (such as a description of who uses the theory and how it's used). The Google hits do seem to be valid. Note in comment further down that author is on wikibreak til December 2007. Phr 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's user page says author is on Wikibreak til December 2007, so don't expect a response. Changed vote to "userfy or merge".


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City of God (comic)[edit]

NN Webcomic found here, fails WP:WEB. Been online for little over 6 months, Alexa comes back with 2 million, forums (yahoo group) almost totally dead. No sign of notability. - Hahnchen 00:41, 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 move to List of NickToons Network Shorts. Mailer Diablo 01:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons Shorts[edit]

This article is a list of Nicktoons Shorts. It was tagged as unencyclopedic and I have to agree. If it has to exist, it would be better off as a category. -- Kjkolb 00:41, 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 as nn-bio. JDoorjam Talk 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dougg Cheal[edit]

No evidence of notability given in the article, none apparent via Google. Seems like a vanity page to me. Uucp 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have to assume good faith that this is true. No, actually we don't -- though perhaps you have a different "we" in mind when you use that word. So unless you're suggesting that Wikipedia has dumped its basic standards of verifiability and citation, there is no "we" (assuming, of course, you are not royalty, a newspaper editor, or have a tapeworm). --Calton | Talk 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is my POV too, but it doesn't accord with:
===AfD etiquette===
*Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers ... assume good faith before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment.
*Notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article when nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised.
This appears to be a new editor Justin sane58and I feel there should have been dialogue in the first instance (especially as the editor has said it is not a vanity article), at least to ask for verification of the claims. There is no dialogue on the article discussion page and no warning on the user talk page (until I put something there). I feel this is lacking in communication and etiquette, when the edit appears to have been made in good faith, even if lack of knowledge of guidelines, which one must expect from a new editor. I feel they deserve a better level of interaction with the existing community, rather than a slap in the face the first time they have a go at editing. Tyrenius 11:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...when the edit appears to have been made in good faith Since this is an obvious attempt to use Wikipedia as a PR vehicle, I'd say, no, this isn't "good faith." --Calton | Talk 16:14, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac GUI[edit]

non notable site. Alexa ranking of 1,012,378. Rory096(block) 00:48, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourfingers[edit]

Originally prodded as a non-notable card game, but was de-prodded by the chief contributor. I've never heard of it before, the only source is also non-notable, and it sounds like something a couple of kids thought up at lunchtime. Vote to delete. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:49, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael T. Burr[edit]

Non notable editor of two non notable redlink journals. Rory096(block) 00:56, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haru-Sari[edit]

Please see the first withdrawn nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haru-Sari, on the grounds it was a non notable webcomic. I pretty much agree with the nominator's original points on this one. The webcomic can be found here and the sub 100 member forums here. Alexa gives it back 3.5 million for those of you interested. - Hahnchen 00:56, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lights Out (Cocktail)[edit]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a cookbook. A transwiki to Wikibooks has already been performed at wikibooks:Transwiki:Lights Out (cocktail), and the author information recorded at wikibooks:Talk:Transwiki:Lights Out (cocktail). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topix.net[edit]

Not such a blatant ((prod)), I thought. Why not throw this one into AfD to be sure?, I thought. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 01:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I had never heard of it either, but its Alexa rank is pretty impressive and seems to be mentioned by a number of reliable sources, such as the above and this one. I don't think Knight Ridder generally values non-notable sites at over $60 million.Cheapestcostavoider 18:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain uneasy on voting a keep, cannot vote delete per Cheapestcostavoider (prob. per WP:CORP. Computerjoe's talk 20:38, 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 and BJAODN, hoax admitted by author, invoking WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre du'due[edit]

Delete I'm guessing this is a joke/hoax. At least, that's what "du'due" brings to mind... Etacar11 01:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I left a note in the creator's talk. "...self-proclaimed immigrants who had lived in Paris all their lives. Pierre spent most of his early youth as a doll," is funny as hell. TeKE 03:46, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoblogs[edit]

Was de-proded by author, who runs the website. 32 unique Ghits. See WP:WEB, WP:VAIN. Delete unless notability established. GTBacchus(talk) 01:18, 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 keep as a withdrawn nomination. bainer (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-denial[edit]

The content of this page is entirely arbitrary. It doesn't really have a reason to exist per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Everything described on it is covered in greater detail and accuracy on other pages. IMO it should be deleted and made into a disambiguation page that links to specific topics, similar to the self-interest page (which, apparently it was created in response to.) rehpotsirhc 01:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Important and encyclopedic concept, especially in religion. Needs expansion, not deletion. Look to asceticism for an example of how an article like this could be developed. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep encyclapedic , not sure I spelled that right though San Saba 02:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic article. Sheehan (Talk) 02:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will point out here that asceticism is a specific and well-defined concept with clear boundaries--it only means one thing. Self-denial can mean many different things. This is why it needs a disambiguation page and not a separate article with content that can only redundantly reproduce the content of some articles, and possibly exclude the content of others that might be related. We should note that Encarta and Britannica do not have separate articles on this subject, but rather use their equivalent of disambiguation to redirect to less nebulous topics. rehpotsirhc 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Making the article into a disambiguation page doesn't require deletion. You just change the text and slap a ((disambig)) on it. I'm not convinced that it should be a disambiguation page, though; "self-denial" seems to have a prima facie obvious meaning (denial of one's own interests), and what pages would it disambiguate? Regardless, if what you want to do is make it a disambiguation page, there's no need to take it through AfD. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I guess. I suppose I assumed that making an edit that would wipe out the entirety of someone else's content required an AfD. rehpotsirhc 03:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be Bold! TeKE 03:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ong[edit]

No evidence of credible information Theccy 01:30, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Gui's de Provence[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AG Films[edit]

nn filmmaking group. Maybe if they won the awards. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:37, 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. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nepenthes rajah/B. H. Danser's Monograph: Nepenthes rajah[edit]

Subpage containing someone's monograph on the plant Nepenthes rajah. Copyright status uncertain (to me, anyway) - it's an old text, so maybe public domain? If it isn't a copyvio, I still think there's a better way to present this information than as a Wikipedia subpage. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 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 ONE Family Fund. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 18:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kady Goldlist[edit]

Non-notable vanity page The article was already speedy deleted once and then recreated. While the young lady seems like a good person and one who will do great things in the year's to come, I don't see this being worth an article (as of this point in time) Alabamaboy 01:46, 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 69 sex position. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. De-((prod))ed, so here we are. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 01:48, 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 speedy delete. JDoorjam Talk 04:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason M. Brown[edit]

Non-notable person. Clearly a vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeccampbell (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 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takanjism[edit]

According to the article itself, this is a religion founded in 2006 with three known adherents. Two Google hits, both DeviantArt pages. I support their religious self-determination and wish them well, but... AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the article now will accomplish nothing. When there finally are several outside sources, all the work will be lost. Perhaps we can let this wait a month or two, and if you still think there's nothing supporting it, it can be deleted. Zack Green 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you can certainly save it in a text file or something, and you could always go to deletion review to get it undeleted if new sources come to light. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that Wikipedia has strict policy, but can I possibly get a bit of a grace period to establish some sources for this? Zack Green 03:18, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers: Thunder Strike[edit]

This is OBVIOUS fancruft and Wikipedia is no place for that! A BLATANT attempt at trying to pass this fanmade project off as something noteworthy! The One and Only 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Power rangers: Thunder Strike has also been nominated. Andy Saunders 16:37, 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. Mailer Diablo 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Danuta Laszcz[edit]

probable hoax, a Buddhist peace activist from Russia who lived at least 110 years, only google hits are to wikipedia. Thatcher131 01:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. San Saba 01:56, 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, rename, or keep all you like, but no consensus to delete the article. Further discussion at talkpage recommended. Mailer Diablo 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Space[edit]

This is a minor factoid that belongs in the already extensive Indian space program page. User:georgeccampbell


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Time Lovers[edit]

Delete, non-notable San Saba 02:02, 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. Mailer Diablo 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groovezilla[edit]

found while cleaning up dead-end pages. looks like a non-notable band, created by anonIP 6 months ago and never updated. But, what do I know about bands. Claims to have one album, allmusic shows an album cover on an otherwise blank page. Thatcher131 02:14, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infantil 0506[edit]

Article about a middle-school soccer team. Author blanked requesting "delete" but as there have been multiple editors, not a speedy candidate. Apparently non-notable.Thatcher131 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not-notable San Saba 03:20, 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 Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sex symbols[edit]

This page is just the opinions of the users editing it and cannot be verified in most cases. OrangutanCurse 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of objective criteria for inclusion. "A subjective list"? What? Wikipedia's an encyclopedia; it doesn't have a personal opinion on who is sexually attractive. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
? So try the lists of actors/singers etc - no reason to keep this. --Doc ask? 18:54, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Federalist Revolutionary[edit]

No assertion of notability of verifiability. De((prod))ed by author, so here we are. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 02:54, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Alternative (Internet Community)[edit]

Vanity article, request for review removed DonaldMick 02:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article my ass. This is a very well known place. I don't think GGFan would give a damn if you posted about civil engineering on there. This is a well known Pokemon community and needs to stay.

The article is poorly written if English isn't your first language.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Morris[edit]

Delete non-notable fancruft. --Arnzy (Talk) 03:03, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands named after places[edit]

I proposise this article is deleted because it seems to fall under 'Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list).' from Wikipedia:appropriate topics for lists--Matt 02:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do a regular radio show which is thematic. A list of artists named after places is very useful for that. I can imagine that I'm not the only person who'd find the list useful for that sort of purpose. Grutness...wha? 04:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be better placed in the Fountains of Wayne article than a list? --Matt 02:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SP DELETE (sole contrib's request and no keep votes) . -Doc ask? 22:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands with repetitive names[edit]

I believe the list is too specific under Wikipedia:appropriate topics for lists Matt 03:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate this list, we don't need personal attacks --Doc ask? 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He started the list and is making fun of himself --Matt 22:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that wan't obvious. But even after he created this awful thing, I wouldn't like to call him a moron. :)--Doc ask? 22:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was just being silly. My "strong delete" is serious, though. (What was I thinking?) dbtfztalk 22:39, 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 keep per rewrite. Kotepho 18:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Thomas[edit]

I think this may be a completely fictional person. None of his records, nor the book he is supposed to have written, are on amazon.com. The article says Tammy Wynette was his third wife, but he isn't mentioned on her Wikipedia page, which has a section for such things. None of the links on his page point to anything that actually mentions his name. I can't find any trace of this "greatest living country singer" anywhere. It should probably be a disambiguation page, since there ARE Ray Thomases who warrant a page (such as one of the founders of the Moody Blues). But that isn't this guy. I don't think this guy exists. Carlo 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't catch that. My pop-up blocker stopped the pop-ups and I thought it was just a dead page. I've removed the link from the page. Fan1967 03:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with vengeance. --Saforrest 04:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. May I suggest deleting the text and turning the article into either a disambiguate page for the others, even though most don't have pages yet, or into a page for the stub for Ray Thomas (Moody Blues). Carlo 11:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or just make this article about Ray Thomas of the Moody Blues. I don't know of any other notable people by that name. The other DAB notices at the top of the page (the US Senators) are not real people. They're modified copies of the DAB notices that were on the George Jones page, as there were two senators by that name. Fan1967 15:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless someone knows of one besides the Moody Blues member there is only one. The senators don't exist. Nothing to DAB. A Google search for the name finds this article, a lot of entries for the musician, and a bunch of scattered others. There's a lawyer, a few academics, a bit actor in old westerns, a catcher who went 1-for-3 in one game for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1938 (his total major league career), an aspiring artist, etc. Nobody who looks notable. Fan1967 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, if nothing is ever written about the others, this can be replaced with an article about the Moody Blues guy. JIP | Talk 16:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel kind of sorry for the catcher. Reminds me of Moonlight Graham. You make it to the Brooklyn Dodgers, and get to play in just one game. Fan1967 16:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Is it okay to consider this one settled? Carlo 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Article is now a stub about the flautist (I prefer flutist, but that's an old argument) for the Moody Blues. Recommend Speedy Close. Hopefully, some music fan can flesh out the article. Fan1967 17:28, 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. JDoorjam Talk 05:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Roaring 20's[edit]

Also Kevin Fey and Karl Fey and Mathew Petronelli. And the images.

An unsigned band with no albums. Does not seem notable. prod removed so it comes here. DJ Clayworth 03:52, 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 nonsense. -Doc ask? 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satanicus[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, no consensus, no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler[edit]

This article is pure speculation and none of the information present can be confirmed. I vote to Delete OSU80 04:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the result is going to change. Fan1967 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK to merge this, after discussion on the talk page, but only after this vote is concluded. We don't generally merge during a vote, as it prevents people seeing what the vote was really about. --Doc ask? 08:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to my merge shortly after the second afd. It was reverted with no reason other than "no consensus". Gazpacho 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there had been reputable sources speculating on the drinking habits of the Pope - then yes, that would be a valid article. But there aren't. There is however a verifiable debate on the sexuality of Hitler (not just 'was he gay?' but was he impotent, and how might we understand his sexual psychology). The 'facts' may be POV, but the fact that there is a debate can be verified and reported. Here's a review of a notable book on the subject [9] which was reviewed in Britians leading History journal History Today and caused them to put a fascinating picture of the Fuhrer in Lederhosen on its front cover [10] with the title 'Hitler's Secret'. --Doc ask? 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 10:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Student Ambassadors[edit]

Just an article on student leaders at a university. This is not for Wikipedia, and is one in a line of similar deleted articles. Nothing except maybe the concept could be merged to the university's article. Harro5 04:12, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within Reach[edit]

Delete, Advertisment San Saba 05:15, 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 SP DELETE crap. -Doc ask? 12:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burgess the Great[edit]

I believe this silliness was first speedied, then recreated. It was a one-sentence stub about a supposed Germanic leader (born ca. 152). When I pressed for references, they helpfully added that all records were destroyed in the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. Perhaps thinking that this sounded too suspicious, a new reference has been added to a book which is no longer in print and copies are rare and in bad condition. ok, that's plenty. Delete, but BJAODN as a small reward for author's creative use of references and audacious assumptions about the stupidity of other wp editors. bikeable (talk) 05:16, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shark attack saga[edit]

Casually written account of three movies, Shark Attack, Shark Attack 2 and Shark Attack 3: Megalodon. These movies do exist, according to IMDB, and therefore there is no reason why there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about them. Unfortunately, it might be more productive to write articles from scratch than to clean this up. Delete, but my opinion might change if this was cleaned up. gadfium 05:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They really are movies? I thought they were descriptions of cut scenes from some game. Still, this thing needs a major rewrite. Let's wait a few days and see if there's some cleanup. --John Nagle 05:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I havent seen these movies, but they certainly do exist, and just by using IDMB reviews and descriptions, Im sure I could write a good summary. Take this down and Ill clean it up. Ill use this one as well, but Ill just uppercase and fix it up real nice. Let me have a few days though.--Pal5017 06:03, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sendermedia[edit]

Non notable company. Only 87 google hits, many of which are unrelated to this. And dont let the link fool you. The site is written in Swiss. Pal5017 05:59, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pun[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The moto guide[edit]

Delete, good site, but not notable enough for inclution in WP San Saba 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. Mailer Diablo 10:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lunch Club[edit]

Delete, not notable enough San Saba 06:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Advertisement Goyanks193 20:44, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article was deleted at author's request. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotherapy: a Personal Approach[edit]

David Smail is mildly notable, but each of his books do not deserve their own page. Mainly, because they are no notable, and they do not add any info of their own. They simply restate information from the David Smail page.Im also nominating his second and third books, Illusion and Reality: the Meaning of Anxiety and Taking Care: an Alternative to Therapy. Pal5017 06:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll go along with that, and have just moved content across. --Lindosland 23:19, 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 Withdrawn. Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 00:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ursuline Academy of Dedham[edit]

NN - 28 google hits Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 07:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 00:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMOG genre challenges[edit]

Non-encyclopedic essay, unreferenced, original research. Prod contested by an anon without comment. Quale 07:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperantomobilo[edit]

Didn't happen. Melchoir 07:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Beegees's History[edit]

Delete, already covered on main Bee Gees page San Saba 07:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly repeats some info from the Bee Gees page. Ande B 07:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver's Software[edit]

Non-notable website. Vanity article by User:Oliversanders. -- RHaworth 07:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD notice removed from the article by an anon. (And this AfD discussion removed from the log! Though that looks like a genuine edit conflict.) -- RHaworth 18:18, 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 delete. Chick Bowen 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education Credit Union of Georgia[edit]

Non-notable credit union - only 13 Google hits. [11] Also, I asked a Georgian editor and he said that he's never heard of it before. The guy who wrote this article, Education Credit Union of Georgia (talk · contribs), has been adding links to his website on Georgia-related article, trying to promote it. --Khoikhoi 20:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Geee wonder if this is self promotion...Delete as non notable spam. Mike (T C) 21:23, 8 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!
bainer (talk) 07:59, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cajun Nights MUSH[edit]

NN online game. Only gets 323 google hits. As of this writing it is ranked #1045 over at The Mud Connector (TMC) and is listed as having a minimum of only 25-49 players online. Delete. --Hetar 23:27, 8 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!
bainer (talk) 08:33, 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 --lightdarkness (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area 17[edit]

article does not assert any notability, appears to be an advertisement for a PR firm, but can't figure out if it wants to be a disambig page either. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:43, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latter-Day Mac[edit]

article gets only 159 google hits, non notable religious niche group. Not meeting WP:WEB etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment- for google link, click http://www.google.com/search?hs=tY0&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Latter day mac%22&btnG=Search ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hetar, to refer to this article as "spamvertisement" is totally inappropriate and attaches a very unnecessary, emotion-driven label to the article. No one is being spammed. This isn't an email being sent out. What is the difference between this article and an article on "Third Day", a Christian Rock Band or an article for "Bibleman Jr.", a Christian kids's show, both of which are Wikipedia articles? "Ship Of Fools" is another example of an article about a niche religious topic. Swatjester - regarding your concern, in the short time between your initial comment and now (4 days) a Google search on "Latter-Day Mac" now garners 256 hits - a 61% increase in 4 days. At that rate, in four more days, this hits could be up over 400. Rsabey 13:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The Phantom Stranger Reading Order[edit]

Fancruft, blatant copyvio and above all, unnecesary, considering we don't apply it to other comic characters. Kusonaga 07:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Chronicles Of Blood Shed[edit]

NN 'webcomic' with no google hits whatsoever apart from this article Tyhopho 10:12, 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 keep. I seem to be smelling something, but never mind.... - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De facto[edit]

"De facto" is not in itself an encyclopedic concept, but merely an adjective/adverb that describes an unofficially recognized state of affairs. In no way does the article discuss anything other than etymology and language usage. That means it's a dictionary definition, although somewhat expanded. The article has no encyclopedic content and even if I'm sure plenty more usage notes can be added, it clearly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a usage guide. Peter Isotalo 10:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep!!! Only those out to decieve and control will persist in deleting such valuable revealing info!!!


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

The result of the debate was uh......no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites[edit]

This article is in need of deletion because it violates several of Wikipedia's policies. For one, it is simply a list of random shock sites that various people have compiled; in effect, an advertisement for shock sites. Wikipedia is a repository for notable information, not an indiscriminate linkfarm. If any of the sites mentioned in the article are notable, then individual articles can be created for them, but most of them would not likely merit an article.

Furthermore, in terms of censorship, while Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, that does not mean that any form of content is acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. In fact, links to shock sites is something specifically mentioned against in What Wikipedia is not. Several users have pointed out that this only refers to placing links to shock sites in articles that are completely unrelated, and that placing links to shock sites in an article dedicated to them is naturally acceptable. However, that would mean that by creating an article dedicated to something that is normally prohibited, the prohibition can just be bypassed. An analogy would be a person disagreeing with Wikipedia's policy about having POV in articles, and creating an article on a subject and specifically noting that POV is allowed in the article as a loophole. Having a link to a specific shock site in the article for that site may fall into Wikipedia's category of appropriate usage, but creating an article that is an indiscriminate list of shock sites is really just a way to bypass Wikipedia's policy of inappropriate linkage.

It should be noted also that a Category:Shock sites already exists.

In addition, I would like to bring to light the interests of those whom have taken both sides of this issue. Though I cannot speak completely objectively, I find that many those who are for the deletion of this article to have the interests of Wikipedia in mind, while those who oppose the deletion often seem concerned primarily with their own interests. Examples of this may be seen in the many of the votes cast during deletion debates.

The following are three votes submitted during previous deletion nominations for this article that share my sentiment:

  1. Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information -- User:Thesquire 10:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) {2nd nomination)[reply]
  2. Delete — The large majority of the sites listed on this page would not stand on their own merits of notability. This page appears to be essentially a blow-by-blow list of web site links. I see nothing notable about this page. — User:RJHall 19:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (2nd nomination)[reply]
  3. Delete - This page is just a resource for those Internet trolls out there who want to scare/disgust other people with these shock sites. There is absolutely no need for this article to stay. I can't believe people are asking to keep this article; It's basically advertising vulgar photographs. I suppose anyone can make a shock site and use this article to "advertise" it. I strongly doubt anyone will come into the mishap of seeing these vulgar links if no one sees this page. I suppose the page that just defines a shock site is OK, but there is no need to post links to shock sites. People know what a shock site is, and they don't need to see an example. --User:Blackeye 12:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC) {3rd nomination)[reply]

I would also like to mention that one of the most repeated reasons for the opposition of deletion has been about Wikipedia not being censored. There are two things wrong with this:

  1. Wikipedia, while not censored for the protection of minors, does have content guidlines, and, as I stated before, shock site links is something specifically mentioned against.
  2. Completely disregarding censorship for a moment, the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. As was stated before, it is just an indiscriminate collection of links and violates policies related to spam and advertisement/promotion. If the article had delt with inoffensive material, it would have been deleted promptly, yet because it deals with shock sites, many have opposed its deletion even though it merits it for fear that by supporting its deletion they might be participating in "censorship".

I will conclude by asking those who are considering casting a vote to think this matter through and to vote with Wikipedia taking precedence over their own interests. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

Please note that the nominator of this nomination has not participated in any of the previous nominations.

Make recommendations below this line[edit]

Wrong. An article does not have to be about commercial products in order to be in violation of the "no promotions/advertisements" policy. - Conrad Devonshire 11:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few of the links on that page could be considered notable. - Conrad Devonshire 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why this article should be deleted, as it is just a host for random shock sites. - Conrad Devonshire 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Goatse" is probably the only notable site mentioned there and it already has its own article. - Conrad Devonshire 15:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Foolish Child 15:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it done. Melchoir 05:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it rather defeat the purpose of a list of websites to not have any external links? Foolish Child 10:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

internet. It is too important not to be listed here. Also, the page enables people to inform themselves on the subject without acutally spoiling their day by having to look at the sites. gbrandt 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Ay Double Yoo 03:03, 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 (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jadir Ambrósio[edit]

Non-notable musician. 149 Google hits. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 21:57, 8 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!
bainer (talk) 10:50, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airline booking ploys[edit]

Does Wikipedia really exist to show people how to fiddle the system? Especially when the article says (and I paraphrase) the main airlines don't like people doing this? Francs2000 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the originator of this article. This article is my first full contribution to Wikipedia. So far I have only done minor fixes under an anonymous identity. I was much dismayed to see that the article has been tagged with an AfD flag only seconds after its completion and somewhat in disregard of WP:BITE. But I guess this is now as good a forum as any to discuss it.
Originally, I started this article thinking that the subject is in the likeness of Pyramid Scheme or Creative accounting and should be covered by Wikipedia, and having thought that I am ripe enough now to be capable of achieving the feat of contributing a full article. Apparently, this was not the case, as can be seen from some of the above statements made by fellow users.
I agree with the comment made by Saberwyn that a good, externally verifiable article could very well be written on this subject. I can try and improve this article myself so it meets such standards, but the time might not be right for that just yet.
However, some of the claims presented here were unjustified, in my opinion. Minor ethical questions would have more properly been discussed on the talk page, and not immediately under an AfD. As for the article being original research, numerous sites discuss the matter thoroughly, as can be seen from a Google search.
In conclusion, I propose this article be made into a stub. --Bardak 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions. I and the others who have voted to delete appreciate the time you took to make the article and your initiative in deciding to do it but we just disagree that such a topic even deserves an article at all. Personally my reasoning is that almost any system can be gamed and exploited. It should be obvious that the same is true about the air travel industry. To that end the topic itself simply doesn't merit an article, and the fact that the article ends up being basically a how-to guide kind of reinforces that for me.
If the article gets deleted please do not feel discouraged. You might want to consider finding other existing articles and seeing how much of this article fits into them. GT 08:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are ethical issues in there, but I believe the article should be expanded upon (and put into the appropriate ethical frame), not deleted. Strong Keep --Ramdrake 16:02, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usbob[edit]

Vanity, Fancruft, non-notable, unencyclopedic - take your pick SFC9394 12:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry - it reads as a load of nonsense - "Chairman: Colin Usbobison" - utter rubbish - sources please for this being notable to the ayrshire resion, from the Ayrshire Post newspaper or some such. WP is not a playground for a load of lads having a laugh. The article is pure Vanity it is as simple as that. SFC9394 12:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"WP is not a playground for a load of lads having a laugh." That I do agree with. That is why we keep our ramblings to our website and away from here. As it stands the article in entirely true. PS. the Colin Usbobison bit is a mistake from when I created the article, it's been fixed.Martin Le Roy 14:12, 15 April 2006 (BST)
That is your opinion - I will let the rest of the WP community decide how valid your points are (bearing in mind the only edits you have made have been on that one article) SFC9394 13:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, I did some updates on the Kilmarnock FC article aswell, though i wasn't signed in as Martin Le Roy. It is down as 81.77.213.120
2 edits under an anon IP which could or could not be you is not an edit history. Can you provide any credible media source to back up whether this team even exists? SFC9394 13:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are metioned on http://www.expage.com/gullspeed, the official website of World Seagull Racing. It's nice to know we are recognised by other sports.
Given the article isn't even about a football league, and the 'club' doesn't even play in a league I am confused as to your comments. SFC9394 15:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's about a real club that play in a real league, so i am siding with george on this one. Good work!! shaun cumming
What league "Shaun"? (aka 87.81.48.82). Can anyone provide any information on this? Are the club affiliated with the SFA through one of the 6 associations? Can anyone provide any evidence of notability whatsoever? SFC9394 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely no legitimate reason for you displaying my IP address. I am extremely disappointed that a site of your stature would resort to such a thing without first asking permission!! I am perfectly aware that i am within my rights to stand up for a club which i used to happily watch every week. i made it to a standard that i have now been asked to join this club! shaun cumming
Hey Shaun, your IP gets logged automagically (check the history tab above). It is quite standard for unsigned posts to be attributed to IPs if they have no user account. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it really is standard practice. The Minister of War (Peace) 16:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hold your horses son... I'd be ok with this getting chucked off cos of Usbob's fledgling notability. But Usbob is real, it is not a hoax let me be clear on that. Besides, as I suggested earlier, our websites have no bearing on what we suggest is actually going on at the club. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martin Le Roy (talk • contribs) .
If the club is real, please provide independent verifiable sources that show that. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a verifiable factual basis for the article. If there is, I will be happy to change my opinion. Gwernol 16:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Further to that, can you please hold off creating any more articles at the moment Martin, until you understand how WP works - Doors (Sport) which you have just created being an example of something that is also likely going to be nominated for deletion unless you can prove that it satisfies Verifiable and Notable amongst other policies. It is important that you understand that WP is not just a online dumping ground for any old thoughts or ideas - the two articles highlighted would be much more suitable at Wikicities than here at WP.SFC9394 16:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest with you, due to the lack of good Ayrshire amature football coverage it's not looking good, is it. I think everything on the official website apart from the frontpage and news is true. The only other evidence I could produce is from the Prestwick Academy Yearbook from when we played their teachers for CIN. Martin Le Roy 17:21, 15 April 2006 (BST)
http://usbob-fc.tripod.com/id29.html pictures of the team with other real people, thats a start at least. I'll get rid of Doors (Sport), only 4 people play it in the world, i see your point there Martin Le Roy 17:27, 15 April 2006 (BST)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitruth.info[edit]

This discussion has become very long. As such, it has been detranscluded from this page and can now be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth.info.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Dive (band)[edit]

Band not appearing to meet WP:BAND guideline. Prod contested. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 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. Shimgray | talk | 14:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maciej_Zalewski[edit]

Page should be deleted due to the fact that it was a malicious, offensive joke by inconsiderate person and is irrelevant to Wikipedia. I feel deeply dissatisfied with such a pathetic endeavour. 83.27.157.78 13:01, 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. Mailer Diablo 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Waring[edit]

Seems like a hoax. Only 34 Google hits, and none of them mention King Henry VIII or anything historical. SCHZMO ✍ 14:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 05:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate strategy development method[edit]

Was orginally nominated for deletion, but nobody declared anything; relisting. User:SP-KP stated: I'm not entirely sure what this article [meaning Corporate_strategy_development_method, Sandstein] is about (I'm not even entirely sure I think it's an AFD candidate). However, it's at least in need of some contextualisation. Any views? SP-KP 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC) No vote. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:27, 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organization design[edit]

Was orginally nominated for deletion, but nobody declared anything; relisting. User:SP-KP stated: I'm not entirely sure what this article [meaning Corporate_strategy_development_method, Sandstein] is about (I'm not even entirely sure I think it's an AFD candidate). However, it's at least in need of some contextualisation. Any views? SP-KP 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC) No vote. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:26, 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. – Alphax τεχ 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business planning[edit]

Was orginally nominated for deletion, but nobody declared anything; relisting. User:SP-KP stated: I'm not entirely sure what this article [meaning Corporate_strategy_development_method, Sandstein] is about (I'm not even entirely sure I think it's an AFD candidate). However, it's at least in need of some contextualisation. Any views? SP-KP 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC) No vote. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:26, 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 David M. Shoup. Shimgray | talk | 14:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Monroe Shoup[edit]

In the words of the article creator, "This text doesn't need to be here ... this bio was already created under David M. Shoup"--Zxcvbnm 14:36, 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. Shanel § 19:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia in Singapore[edit]

No relevant content despite existing for nearly a year. Incoming links only from Homosexuality in Singapore, which itself should suffice to cover the topic. Jpatokal 14:48, 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonderful World Of Romoin And Friends, Romoin, and Insta-nan[edit]

The Wonderful World Of Romoin is a non-notable webcomic you'll find here. Romoin is an article about the main character of this comic, and Insta-nan is the (fictional) brand of coffee he prefers. Its claim to notability is that the comic has a small following on two internet forums (no Wikipedia articles for either) and that the author spammed it on a third. It doesn't meet WP:WEB. It also has WP:VAIN problems as all three articles are by the webcomic's author (note the author and licenses used on the images uploaded to commons). –Abe Dashiell


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China Aviation Oil (Singapore) Corporation Ltd[edit]

As far as I can tell, this company fails to meet any of the three notability standards at WP:CORP. Therefore, I am recommending deletion as non-notable. RayaruB 15:13, 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. - brenneman{L} 08:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvenbaath[edit]

Non-notable webcomic. 769 Google hits. Delete. DMG413 15:43, 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 Eddie Guerrero. Mailer Diablo 15:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vickie Guerrero[edit]

The article subject is only famous because of her (now deceased) husband. She don't require an article. McPhail 15:55, 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. Eivindt@c 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elation[edit]

Orphaned AfD. Completing.

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

The result of the debate was merge as this is a duplicate article. Actually, I will merge MS Enchantment of the Seas here, rather than the other way around, since that is consistant with the other ship entries in the Royal Caribbean International article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enchantment of the Seas[edit]

Cleaning up someone else's nomination. No vote. Andy Saunders 16:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the same ship as MS Enchantment of the Seas Splamo 16:25, 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. -- No Guru 01:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard P. Sandulli[edit]

Seems to be another nn-bio. HappyCamper 16:27, 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. Shanel § 19:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Czarnetzky[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. On top of that, only 60 google hits. Not notable. Pal5017 16:30, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Creativity[edit]

Delete Advert San Saba 16:33, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sunday Belgium[edit]

This page lists no useful information, apart from some Vlaams Blok/Vlaams Belang bashing that is already prominent on other pages. Just refer to the last paragraph as an indication of the usefulness of this article. 1652186 16:45, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Television[edit]

Non notable company. Alexa ranking of 869,820, and Google doesn't work well with such a common phrase. "national television" "Brumby Boylston" -wikipedia only gets 119 hits, though. Rory096(block) 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire! 21:25, 15 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 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MindTree Consulting[edit]

Advertisement that does not assert notability. (Prod removed without explanation.) –Sommers (Talk) 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it!!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Department of Science and Technology (Philippines). (Already done.) --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Science and Technology[edit]

There is absolutely no information on this page at all. -Bottesini 17:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a seed, and I don't know if the creation author intends to add more content or not - his edit summary says "created preliminary article", which may indicate that things are not finished yet. The subject is legitimate, and there are plenty of articles that are literally one line stubs. As long as the article subject is legitimate and within WP's guidelines then I am always happy for a stub to be there, as it encourages others to expand it (whereas if the article didn't exist then there would be no chance of expansion unless someone went to the trouble of creating it). SFC9394 19:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of them were created by other users, and it seems that that precedence has lead to others being created with the same form - if these could all be moved then it would save any further confusion (or Afd's). SFC9394 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I took the time to check the articles, and all articles except the one on the DSWD redirect to their respective articles with the disambiguation. --Akira123323 03:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuppelvideo[edit]

Non notable software. Rory096(block) 17:12, 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. - brenneman{L} 08:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badger Badger Badger Parodies[edit]

This page was created by Greenunity (talk · contribs) who also owns the site that hosts the "rogerrogerroger" animation. He spammed his link into Badger Badger Badgers–related pages [23] [24] [25] and when he was told to stop he created this article as a vehicle for his and other non-notable "parodies". Apart from that, this article is vanity and verges on WP:POINT. It explicitly does not include notable animations that are on Badger Badger Badger, and therefore is entirely non-notable by design. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:15, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole LaPlaca[edit]

non notable actress (though she's been a minor part of some notable films). 450 Ghits = barely more than me. Rory096(block) 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faust (Programming language)[edit]

author objected to ((prod)), see Talk:Faust (Programming language). No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 17:25, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Albrect[edit]

Non notable martial artist. Only 84 Ghits. Rory096(block) 17:28, 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 deleted per A7: group of people with no assertion of notability. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver (band)[edit]

Probably a nn-band, prodded with no reason given, so I'm Afd-ing it. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 17:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*keep actually, it sounds like it may pass WP:MUSIC as they have an album, which I am assuming was on an "indie" label. Roodog2k 21:40, 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. Shanel § 19:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Lane Blacktop[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC Pal5017 17:32, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noodlefilm[edit]

nn neologism, I think (it's a bit nonsensical). 179 Ghits. Rory096(block) 17:33, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noetology[edit]

As they say on Wiktionary, tosh. 8 Ghits. Rory096(block) 17:35, 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. No Guru 22:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothingatall[edit]

Non notable website; Alexa has no data. Rory096(block) 17:54, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Satanic Temple[edit]

Non notable website. The site it's hosted on has a 3,540,085 Alexa ranking- and this is just a subdomain! Rory096(block) 17:59, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel and Jim[edit]

Non notable... whatever it is. 177 Ghits, most unrelated. Rory096(block) 18:02, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Gessinger[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable; only 827 Ghits. Rory096(block) 17:37, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoknowledge[edit]

Seems to be a non notable company. 83 Ghits. Rory096(block) 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, anon IP blanked this page, removed AFD notice from article, and listed my userpage on AFD Pete.Hurd 15:49, 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? 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newage3[edit]

nn MMORPG, only 19,548 players total. Rory096(block) 17:16, 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. No Guru 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sparky Deathcap[edit]

It seems to me that having an "official webpage" that's a MySpace profile is prima facie evidence of non-notability. I'm not an expert on musical groups, however, so I'm opening it up for discussion instead of using prod. Icarus 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's true that many popular acts have myspace pages. The red flag is when that's the only place they're listed. Fan1967 18:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NETinventory[edit]

Non notable software. 12700 Ghits, 0 Gnews hits. Rory096(block) 18:28, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESTafarian[edit]

NN, and if it were, it'd be in wikitionary entry Tony Bruguier 18:34, 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. Shanel § 19:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Pike[edit]

NN infant actress. 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. Delete. --Tone 18:45, 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. Chick Bowen 05:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa, Jaden and Brandon Morgan[edit]

NN infant actors. 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. Delete. --Tone 18:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's clearly the intent of the nominator. As Calton says, children this young are props, not performers. Most of these articles have been created by the parents or (based on the edit histories) the agents, and serve no purpose. Few of them will ever have speaking roles. Fan1967 05:18, 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. Chick Bowen 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Aulsebrook-Walker[edit]

NN infant actor. 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. Delete. --Tone 18:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but you can't say there's any talent involved, it's just appearing. --Tone 19:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the kid (less than a year old it looks like) were actually performing, that would be worth noting. --Calton | Talk 02:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Ana de Mendonça[edit]

Article seems to be pure conjecture; Joao II only had one wife, and it wasn't this person. Also, Google pulls a blank when searching for the names in this article. Bill (who is cool!) 19:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, when I googled that, nothing showed up. OK, looks like I made a big screw up... Bill (who is cool!) 21:50, 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. See relevant discussion. Harro5 23:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIA's Role: 'PBSUCCESS'[edit]

OR essay Rory096(block) 19:03, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Podcatchers[edit]

Article contains only links mostly to commercial products and not GPL ones Scott Grayban 19:14, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode VII: The Fallen Hero/Temp[edit]

Delete - complete fancruft, never gonna happen, etc. This article has been up multiple times (with different titles, of course), and every time it has either been speedy deleted or deleted, as discussed most recently here. MikeWazowski 20:14, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NibbleGuru[edit]

nn site, 242317 Alexa ranking Rory096(block) 20:16, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame High School, Sheffield[edit]

This page seems to be written more in humor than anything else, it serves no educational purpose.--Childzy 22:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Areepattamannil[edit]

This article is about a family of four, written by a member of the same family. Shijaz 20:25, 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. Kusma (討論) 14:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azmir[edit]

WP:NOT. rehpotsirhc 20:35, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IllyRap Recordings[edit]

WP:SPAM, WP:VAIN. rehpotsirhc 20:38, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Siegfried[edit]

WP:VANITY, self created. Also, a search has Wikipedia as the 2nd result, so nn? James Kendall [talk] 20:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean John Lennon is non notable?? Anyway Delete on the basis of vanity and non-notability, but certainly not the google part. GT 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who? :P James Kendall [talk] 21:53, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omaha Cox Channel 22, Omaha Cox Channel 23[edit]

Non notable public access channels. Rory096(block) 20:48, 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 Speedy Delete by Sannse (Reason: db-bio) --lightdarkness (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milad Moezzi[edit]

WP:VAIN, WP:NN. rehpotsirhc 20:50, 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 by Sannse (Reason: Aritcle has been created under it's correct name) --lightdarkness (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credit to the Naiton[edit]

Orphaned AfD. Looks like the author wants it deleted per misspelled title. He's recreated it under the correct name. I've tagged it for Speedy Delete CSD-G7. Fan1967 21:47, 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 KEEP. -Doc ask? 18:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Llort[edit]

Google search for Fernando Llort Choussy comes up with 22 hits, not all related to him. Not notable, can't find any evidence of "international recognition" ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:03, 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 

Speedy delete by Vegaswikian under CSD G6. --Hetar 07:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NID (Stargate)[edit]

I want to rename the article "National Intelligence Division" to "NID (Stargate)" according to the reason explained in the discussion of the article: the meaning of "NID" was never revealed in the Stargate series. But before I can do this, the yet existing redirect "NID (Stargate)" needs to be removed. Martin von Wittich 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G6 (housekeeping, uncontroversial delete to make room for a page move). I have tagged the article accordingly. Fan1967 21:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to me a Merge is a separate discussion. The Trust and NID are separate, though related, organizations, and some might argue they deserve separate articles. I would be inclined to move this one and then formally propose a Merge on both pages. Fan1967 22:09, 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 d3l3t3. Mailer Diablo 17:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The red rebel[edit]

Contested prod. Reprodded in violation of prod policy. Relevant policies and guidelines will be WP:BIO and WP:V. The only information I can find about him that I'm sure is the same guy in the article is the guy's own website. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:39, 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 KEEP. -Doc ask? 18:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity trip[edit]

Non-notable university travelling organization. Claims to be the largest university ski trip in the world. 545 Google hits. Prod tag removed without explanation by the page's creator, who also removed an ((importance)) tag later added. Delete. DMG413 21:43, 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, as an admitted hoax. FreplySpang (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Stewart[edit]

I cannot find any evidence that this footballer ever exsisted. This article is unfortunatley not about the Bournemouth keeper. The article claims that he scored 7 goals in a World Cup final that England never made and for him to have won 3 World Cups (England have only won the World Cup once in 19966) However, it claims notability and as far as I can doesn't qualify for speedy although it should. Englishrose 21:48, 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 Transwiki to Cookbook wiki. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhi food[edit]

This is a list of recipes and should belong in one of the cookbook wikis. SCHZMO ✍ 22:50, 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. If anyone would like the information to post on another website, please feel free to contact me or another admin. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Tigers game recaps (2005/2006 season)[edit]

This is a POV account of every game played by a professional Australian basketball team last season. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and seeing as only one team in the league has this info, I'd propose deleting it as we don't want commentary on sports on Wikipedia. At the very least, this should be moved to Wikibooks or something; we could even post on the OzHoopsAlmanac wiki if that's appropriate. Harro5 23:11, 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 as the reposting of a deleted article. JDoorjam Talk 23:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Tataryn(ice hockey player)[edit]

Non notable ice hockey player for some minor leagues; just 600 Ghits. "Do not delete" made me think it was a repost, but this exact article at least has not been deleted before. Rory096(block) 23:15, 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. Sheesh. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rishesh Singh[edit]

non-notable entrepeneur, 483 google hits (64 if guitar tabs are ignored) Neier 23:18, 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 delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester fosgate[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:19, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Dishman[edit]

Seems to be a personal page, doesn't meet threshold of notability. -- Curps 23:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Myspace is for funny man.

  • Comment that is a seriously weak argument. Of course wikipedia cannot be the sum of ALL knowledge. Otherwise everyone ever born would deserve an article and that is just silly. IrishGuy 16:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Egress[edit]

NN. Fails WP:MUSIC standards of notability. The page is poorly written by me about a local band. Chad --> Eclectek 23:23, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate EAW[edit]

I'm slightly hesitent to put this up for deletion, since it appears quite a bit of effort went into the article. However, any mod is probably not nearly notable enough until a more or less finished (perhaps stable) version is released. SirNuke 23:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are in the process of updating this, and adding more information about the mod. Just sit tight, and we will have lists of vehicles we are including, more pictures of skinned models, and progress reports. Edit-Just Added more content. --Ross 16:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dale_M_Houstman[edit]

The article subject, Dale M Houstman already had a Wikipedia article Voted for Deletion under the article title, Dale M. Houstman. The article subject is so non-notable, I cannot find any credible reference source besides a spam website in the External Links on the article's page. Also, there exists blantantly false information that alleges Dale M Houstman was the creator of the comic book character, "Hasty Pudding" in DC Adventure comics #489. Upon investigating this matter, I went to the DC comics index website at http://www.dcindexes.com/database/comic-details.php?comicid=1348 and typed in the character, "Hasty Pudding" under find a character and I also typed in "Dale Houstman" under find a creator and no such character or creator exists! This is not only false and misleading information, but spamming and trolling and vandalism of Wikipedia as well. Speedy Delete on this article.Classicjupiter2 23:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc ask? 18:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. David School[edit]

What makes this school notable? Unlike other Diocese of Oakland schools with articles in Wikipedia there are no mentions of notable faculty, alumni, athletics or academics. Dspserpico 23:50, 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