< April 15	April 17 >

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep). While sympathetic to the OR concerns, it does not invalidate the entire article. The external links seem valid, so the topic is at least discussed at some level outside of Wikipedia. Since the votes are about 70% delete, but no argument other than OR was put forth for deletion, I'm calling this a no-consensus keep. Voters on both sides are encouraged to remove OR from the article, tag it as needing such, or to start a dialog on the article's talk page. Turnstep 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queer people of color[edit]

This is original research and reads more like the outline of a paper than an encyclopedia article; even as a list, this would probably end up being largely conjectural and would probably still qualify as original research. Delete. JDoorjam Talk 00:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gay Nigger Association of America and delete. Erik the Rude 00:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. dbtfz^talk 01:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Cleanup My first guess was ixnay as well, but Who'd have thunk - 17K ghits, a lot of them on serious edu websites. We have much less notable orgs on WP.Bridesmill 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per Deizio, below, there are actually only 605 unique hits. JDoorjam Talk 13:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't understand the objections. Like everything else, the article should be confined to verifiable information; why would it "probably" end up as original research? In no case redirect to the GNAA troll farm; that is a terrible suggestion. Lambiam^Talk 01:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR. I also think that the suggestion to "merge" to GNAA is incorrect and most likely a bad joke.--Jersey Devil 03:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research and redirect to GNAA. --Terence Ong 03:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no redirect. This is unrelated to the trolling group. TeKE 03:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought User:Erik the Rude's vote was a joke, but for the record, do not redirect. -- unsigned comment by JDoorjam - DarthVader 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Nortelrye 05:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Hetar 06:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but don't redirect, it has no connection to a trolling group. -- Mithent 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is clear evidence that this has no relation to Gay Nigger Association of America and can be expanded on to be more of an "article" if many agree that it resembles an outline.Anarkafrica 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (17 edits, 8 of which were to this AfD) JDoorjam Talk 13:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete, no assertion that this is an "organisation" (as others seem to be suggesting), just a term and some OR. per nom, 612 unique g-hits. [1] Deizio 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article itself in no way suggests that its topic is an organisation, anymore than, for example, Christians in the Persian Gulf does. You can't vote delete just because an article does not decribe an organisation. "Christians in the Persian Gulf" gets 13 unique Google hits[2], some of which are Wikipedia or Wikiclone entries. So should it be deleted? Come on people, can't we stick to serious arguments? Lambiam^Talk 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not this article. This is this article. If you feel the "Christians in the Persian Gulf" article is not notable or falls under some other criteria for deletion, nominate it for deletion. As it stands, this article — an article that, uncited, states that being a "QPOC... intensifies the complications of existing in an oppressed community within an already marginalized community" and that "queer life has become a catalyst for religious and political crossfire worldwide and prohibited as taboo and perverse in social laws in most non Western countries" — sets off my WP:NOR-dar. JDoorjam Talk 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean to suggest it should be deleted because it's not about an organisation, I was pointing out that some voters seem to think it is an organisation and might not have considered the matter as fully as possible. However, on reflection this is not as big a problem as I thought and I've struck the ambiguity. Btw, threatening to or encouraging others to nominate articles for deletion for no good reason other than "If A is OK, why not B?" tends to rub WP:POINT up the wrong way. Deizio 01:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies if I misunderstood you, but why did you count the Google hits then? I was not trying to suggest that the Christians in the Persian Gulf should disappear; it served as an illustration that there was something wrong with a criterion I thought I saw being applied. A simple way to establish that a criterion for deletion is wrong, is to show that it also condemns perfectly good articles when applied to them. Or did you mean my reaction to Erik the Uncivil (no offense intended)? That was in the hope it would make him think about what he wrote, as a Gedankenexperiment. Lambiam^Talk 03:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, looks very much like original research. But, do not redirect to the GNAA page. --Andy123(talk) 15:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but greatly expand and beef up the citations. This is a noteworthy topic. As for OR, there's enough in the article that is not OR that the article should not be deleted on that ground. Doctor Whom 16:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I was joking, by the way. I thought it was such a spectacularly bad joke that no one would take it seriously. This article should be deleted because it may not be entirely obvious who is "queer" and who is a "person of color," and therefore some interpretation (i.e., original research) may come into play. Erik the Rude 16:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that token you presumably are of the opinion that African Americans in the United States Congress, Black Indians, List of African Americans, List of African American jurists, List of African-American mathematicians, and List of Black Jews should all be deleted. Lambiam^Talk 18:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got no problem with deleting those entries. Bring them up for a vote, and I'll vote to delete. Erik the Rude 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think they should be kept, so for me nominating them for deletion would violate WP:POINT. If you think they should be deleted, why don't you "bring them up" and see what happens? Lambiam^Talk 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• " This article should be deleted because it may not be entirely obvious who is "queer" and who is a "person of color," and therefore some interpretation (i.e., original research) may come into play." - Well then the notables section should be stricken, but you have yet to provide a valid reason as to why the article cannot remain where it is. Anarkafrica 19:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See Lambiam's objection. --YesIAmAnIdiot 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete who the hell cares if Denzil Washington (arbitrary example!) is queer or not!? Jcuk 23:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's a very poor example. Think of Bayard Rustin (seasoned activist, advisor and co-organizer to Martin Luther King) and James Baldwin- at a time when the basis for attaining equal rights and justice was not and still isnt so discernable to non whites unlawfulness disfavored and homosexuality a retardation and infiltration to affirming racial identity and manhood to effective warring against the power structure in place.Anarkafrica 17:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete eh? no. -Doc ^ask? 23:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, revise and expand. QPOC exists and to disappear it would be nothing short of bigotry. Morganfitzp 05:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, revise and expand. Obviously there is much more to be said about this, but it's a good start towards describing the experience of a group of people who both experience racism and homophobia/heterosexism. I don't really understand the objection that this is not an objective article, since this is obviously a topic with many viewpoints and isn't likely to be objective no matter who writes it. Jamespkennedy 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (Two edits, both to this AfD.) JDoorjam Talk 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• I think it should be kept. It is important to be educated about the gay rights of coloured people. It should be revised and updated. Santos Martinez 03:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (17 edits, to two articles, his own user page, and this AfD.) JDoorjam Talk 17:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has at least six other edits, made while – apparently accidentally – not logged in, namely as 64.229.197.163 and as 64.229.198.252, also involving fixing vandalism to a third article. Lambiam^Talk 18:52, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Office of International Treasury Control[edit]

• Keep it, please - I am surprised that someone would like to delete the article. I posted it precisely because there is no much information going around about the OITC and the little there is seem to indicate it is a scam of which people should be warned. It seemed to me that Wikipedia could be a good place for people to pool data about it so that a more clear picture appears. I have conducted research and have included all information available, with links to newspapers that anyone can check. Please, don't ask to delete it before checking the links and considering the importance of people being able to access some information about this matter. Brintolin (Talk)

nn fake UN division, only 125 Ghits, admits it isn't verifiable. Rory096_(block) 00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - potentially a wikinews, needs much more research to make it an article - if the 'is' for real & breakking news, the location prob explains the low ghits for now.Bridesmill 01:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V. Unverifiable, for all we know this could all be a hoax.--Jersey Devil 01:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverifiable, hoax. --Terence Ong 03:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverifiable Nortelrye 05:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sheehan (Talk) 12:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't see what the problem is. Obviously the OITC is a scam, but it is verified that it is a scam with organisations like the UN having to make serious denials and references like Fiji govt.Tyrenius 13:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, rename, redirect, there is an article here about an international scam which probably gets past WP:CHILL, but current page title is misleading. Rename as OITC fraud (following Advance fee fraud aka 419 fraud). Deizio 15:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It appears to be a viable stub, yet has some questionable notability. Kukini 18:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sheesh, no kidding this organization is a hoax. This is an article about a notable hoax. RGTraynor 18:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It shouldn't be deleted because it's a hoax; it should be deleted because it's a non notable hoax. Why would a notable hoax get only 125 Google hits? --Rory096_(block) 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename This is notable hoax if the UN has commented about it. Low Google hits may be because it is in Fiji. But, it needs to be renamed as per Deizio banta 01:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Unmature[edit]

This webcomic, seen here can be found on the small free webcomics host Drunkduck. This comic has been around since December 2005, and has like 30 strips under its belt. This is not a notable website, the whole of Drunkduck manages an Alexa rank of 90,000 and this is just one of the many comics on its site. - Hahnchen 00:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete per nn, alexa rank of just under 90K. [3]--Jersey Devil 01:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete as non-notable, and watch out for the sockpuppets; they were out in full-force for the last DrunkDuck webcomic afd. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 01:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the Webcomic Cleanup Drive. TeKE 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 03:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn... Sheehan (Talk) 12:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -- Mithent 12:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn webstuff Deizio 15:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TKE --Andy123(talk) 16:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Alexa rank and non-notable.--Doug (talk) 20:12, 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 01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 3[edit]

Speculation and rumor. See google results.[4] -- Nominator is Mad Jack O'Lantern - DarthVader 04:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nod Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although it has been verified that the movie will be made, there is no verifiable information beyond that. Delete as crystallball. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been verified? Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various interviews done right after the success of High School Musical, several higher-ups' (Such as the VP of Disney Channel Worldwide) have stated that High School Musical is a 3 part film, and all three have been greenlit. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Crystalballs.Bridesmill 01:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Jersey Devil 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would weak keep High School Musical 2, but this has a couple years before consideration. TeKE 02:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nortelrye 05:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete flimsy speculation Tyrenius 13:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nope Deizio 15:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball --Andy123(talk) 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE - High School Musical 4 has been nominated for deletion aswell, for the same reasons. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Bill Borden, producer of High School Musical, said the film is meant to be a three part telefilm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.40.20 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 18 April 2006
• Delete, per nominator, shiny crystal balls. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:15, 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. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pebble Version[edit]

This Pokemon fan fiction webcomic can be seen here and you can see their user forums here. It achieves an Alexa rank of over 5 million. A Google search for "Pebble Version" brings up 125 hits, many of which don't refer to the comic at all. (It also seems to be some sort of Java blogging tool amongst other things) - Hahnchen 00:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete nn webcomic, over 5 million alexa ranking.--Jersey Devil 02:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Alexa rankings can be iffy, but for a site that's been online for two and a half years, that's clearly nn. TeKE 04:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nortelrye 05:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NN. Danny Lilithborne 06:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn webcomic. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn webstuff Deizio 16:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Andy123(talk) 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Doug (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Alexia rankings have proved to be highly unreliable and my attempts at the aforementioned google search have turned up more hits than previously reported. In addition, being a fan of Pebble Version, I know of many sites that mention it which do not show up in the google search. Finally, it tends to rank in the top 30-40 on Top Web Comics, so it clearly has a decent following. --NBolt (talk) 22:120, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The Torchic article has a paragraph on it since Torchic is the main character. Pebble Version doesn't need one. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author is actually asking users to keep it. Which explains all the IPs... Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Actually, he's merely pointing out that the article is up for delation and mentioning that people can comment if they would like. If he was really asking people to do it there'd probably be a lot more respones. Also, he does make of point of telling people to make intelligent comments and not spam if they do come here. --NBolt (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep firstly torchic is not the main charicter, it is brenden secondly if what TKET is true then we can delete some younger stuff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.23.74 (talk • contribs) .

Poké-centric wise (le sigh) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - His comment is actually, in spite of its 2 year run, it still hasn't managed to generate big numbers. We do delete a lot of younger stuff, but webcomics pop up on Wikipedia all the time, it's hard to keep track. - Hahnchen 13:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You guys are picky... can we just let ONE entry stay on Wikipedia for once?!? Pebble Version is a poplular, and good comic. It is linked to on Bob and George. I would hate to see it's entry deleted. Please, have mercy. --Ryan 16:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.204 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep: It rocks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.98.138.235 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep: It is a very good comic and deserves a page if it has been running for two years.--Linkmasta 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What does this even mean? I have a very good friend, he's been alive for 20 years? Keep? This really isn't about how good something is. - Hahnchen 02:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article does not assert notability of topic, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:58, 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 Turnstep 01:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macc lads (muttleys) bass cabinet[edit]

An unencyclopedic and borderline nonsense tale about a speaker cabinet that once belonged to the Macc Lads. Bige1977 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Macc_Lads & delete.Bridesmill 01:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Bridesmill. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Doing sessions from Live tours and studio dates!" Okay, unimportant. TeKE 04:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly nonsense, not vaguely notable or encyclopedic. If it's important it will / would be in the parent article without direction from us. Deizio 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly nonsense, is non-notable, the source links are to blogs. --Andy123(talk) 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus/keep. While the people voting for delete had a 68% simple majority, I fail to see how this page could be considered so unsalveagable as to warrant deletion. The page has valid references, and appears to be attempting to summarize that research, rather than just being plain original research. Deserves a cleanup and/or an expert tag, and a possible rename, but not a delete. Turnstep 01:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attractiveness, Self-Image and Body-Type Preferences among Whites and African Americans[edit]

Non-notable and usesessly specific article subject. This article is non-encyclopedic content Berger 00:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencycopedic. dbtfz^talk 01:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen the "good" version and I stand by my opinion. This might make a good essay, but it's just not encyclopedic. dbtfz^talk 02:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after Merge to Physical_attractiveness.Bridesmill 01:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Don't merge or redirect, nothing is salvagable from the page as is (the resources used could be from anywhere). Per WP:OR--Jersey Devil 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Look at the history. The version that has been tagged for deletion is the result of massive vandalism. I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination and revert to the last good version [5] of 22:11, April 12, 2006, and then reconsiders the AfD issue. Lambiam^Talk 02:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, thank you for bringing that up. But I still think is should be deleted per WP:OR.--Jersey Devil 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good call Lambian, decent article with references. Not my cup of tea, but it's academic research. TeKE 02:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not original research; the article summarizes academic studies performed by others in a neutral way. I don't understand what makes it "just not encyclopedic". I hear what you say and I think it is "just not an argument". Lambiam^Talk 02:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, yes it lists "resources" which can be from anywhere. Simply putting down a name and a title of an article without where the article was published does not make a resource verifiable and thus this is OR. See I can do it as well Jersey Devil PhD. "Wikipolitics: Islam, POV forks, and Systematic Keep Votes"--Jersey Devil 03:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your point, and I agree this this is probably a paper someone wrote. I think with cleanup by people who know psychology, it can be turned from a paper into an article. I'd like to see it around for sixty days to give a chance for cleanup, because the subject has merit per Not a paper encyclopedia and the other psychological relation articles. I'm not a fan of the article as is, but I see no reason to delete. TeKE 03:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some content in this article may be suitable for merging into other existing articles, but unless it is truly encyclopedic to have an article devoted solely to attractiveness, self-image and body-type preferences among JUST whites AND African Americans, this article should be deleted I believe. I mean, should we also have an article called "Attractiveness, Self-Image and Body-Type Preferences among Asians and Pacific Islanders"? I know, a little exagerated, but I think you get my point. I just don't think its encyclopedic to have an article for a non-notable study done on a non-notable subject. --Berger 03:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the good explaination. I personally disagree because of the disparity of interracial relations due to this preference. I'm still staying by keep, but you response is convincing and I have no problem with consensus here. TeKE 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see your point as well TeKE. However, when an article is questionable, I usually like to air on the side of keeping Wikipedia clean and thus deletion. --Jake11 21:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's my philosophy too, most of my voting history shows. As I said, I'm not a fan of the article but I do think this is rather quick for deletion, because it could be cleaned up. I'm not the person to do it, I'm no expert. This RfD is a bit hasty to me is all. TeKE 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Jersey Devil's unverifiability complaint: It is not hard to find verifiable versions of most references – it took me only seconds. I added the completions. Lambiam^Talk 10:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What is this, Wikipolitan Magazine? Far from encyclopedic. --Craw Returns 02:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-encylopedic. DarthVader 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & unencyclopedic Nortelrye 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR, unencyclopedic, and absolutely too subjective to be useful. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with physical attractiveness. --Knucmo2 10:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:OR, non-encyclopedic essay. -- RexNL 14:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, barely referenced, subjective, ne essay Deizio 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not OR, as explained above. Also, if it's so NN, why have several academic studies been done on the subject? Still, it could use a cleanup and possibly a new title that doesn't limit it to "Whites and African Americans." Doctor Whom 16:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Eusebeus 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic. I've seen the "good" version myself, and this is plainly original research. Spice it up and it might make a good Cosmo article, keep the tone and it'll do for any number of academic journals, but. RGTraynor 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An article on this subject is encyclopaedic. Needs cleanup and moving to a more succinct title. David | Talk 18:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think I saw something like this in one of the magazines on the checkout line at Wal-Mart. It may be suitable for an episode of Oprah, but not an encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Better than I thought it would be.--God Ω War 06:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & revert to a good version. JeffBurdges 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G1. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasy_tour[edit]

Page originated as a joke starting on said message board and is comprised of highly opinionated comments. Spellcheck10 01:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly opinionated comments? Oh noes!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.19.137.247 (talk • contribs) .

get loser, let it be who are u the internet police —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew kachur (talk • contribs) .

THis is as close to the truth as it gets! PT is the real deal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.7.153.41 (talk • contribs) .

Delete if not speedy; it's already been speedied twice with pretty much the same content (and tripped my watchlist as such). Andy Saunders 02:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonsense Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and protect from recreation TeKE 02:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete pure nonsense. Montco 02:34, 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 as hoax. — FireFox • T [12:40, 16 April 2006]

Jake Utah[edit]

Appears to be a hoax. Can't verify anything about a "Jake Utah" via Google except that he is a 22-year-old with a MySpace page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vanity, bollocks, nn bio, etc. dbtfz^talk 01:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V. The claims made by the article need to be verifiable.--Jersey Devil 01:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verified. "Jake Utah" and "Best Week Ever" returns 1 Google hit....to a myspace page that Jake Utah has left a comment on. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity, perhaps hoax. DarthVader 04:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hoax. If he was a co-host of "Best Week Ever" I think VH1 would know about it. Fan1967 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity, hoax, nn. --Terence Ong 04:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo's wallpaper[edit]

Non-notable, vanity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trebor Rowntree (talk • contribs)

• Keep - No advertising and not for profit site - if you like we can delete it and I will add it back so we can strike the silly "vanity" fru-fru. Also, his site is notable having been written up in Computer Graphics World Magazine and it's been in yahoo for over nine years.
  • Jmunchovie, you have to sign your posts with four tildes (like this ~~~~ in order for your votes to count.) --Saforrest 04:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn - WP:BAI for several reasons.Bridesmill 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No Alexa ranking, fails WP:WEB. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 04:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. That it has no advertising and is nonprofit makes no difference; there is no evidence of notability currently present. As well, we have seen lots of vanity articles for noncommercial sites. --Saforrest 04:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while jmunchovie's defense is admirable, it doesn't change the fact that the subject of the article is non-notable Nortelrye 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge site doesn't rise to real notability, but the pictures on it are nice. Its url could be listed in a list of external links in an article about artwork of this type. Phr 05:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. RexNL 14:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:WEB noncompliant, agree with Phr under right conditions. Deizio 16:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was moved to Categories for deletion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambidextrous people[edit]

This page isn't relevant for any of the people listed, except for footballer Donovan McNabb. This irrelevancy is reinforced by the fact that there's no mention of ambidexterity on the articles for John Roberts or Kurt Cobain. Chaser 01:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Object. James Garfield is listed and he was indeed ambidextrous. He could write Greek in one hand and Latin in the other, simultaneously. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to CfD. This is a category, not an article. -- Mithent 12:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have now moved to CfD. -- Mithent 12:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Middleton[edit]

Vanity, can't really be made into a userpage —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 02:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Tony Bruguier 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnotable minor radio personality. Green Giant 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep - would being a presenter for a BBC station make him sort of notable? The page just needs to be made into less of a shrine than it currently is.Montco 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Considering he's a freelance presenter on an early graveyard shift at three regional stations and only a stand-in for two other regional stations, I'd say he's not very notable. Admittedly BBC WM (West Midlands) has a large potential audience, but this guy is hardly a Tony Blackburn or a John Peel. :) Green Giant 03:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Notable enough in my opinion, being a presenter for a BBC station. Needs to be cleaned up if it stays. Is the article just randomly copied from some other source? DarthVader 04:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong 04:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Saforrest 04:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable person. RexNL 14:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - or keep the subject if anyone wants to prune it to a tenth of the length (max). Tyrenius 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, 100% non notable. Anyone who thinks a freelance BBC local radio presenter is automatically notable doesn't know much about WP:BIO or BBC local radio. Deizio 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per DarthVader Jcuk 23:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom SYSS Mouse 03:29, 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 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Joy[edit]

Article about someone who designed some shirts for the singer of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. Doesn't seem notable enough. Recury 02:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom Tony Bruguier 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete" Article is accurate and contains a viable, current link. Christian Joy's been in Nylon magazine and on my blog, and I'm betting none of you Deleters have. Oh, and Christian Joy does great stuff.
• Delete per nom, no assertion of notability. --Lockley 22:07, 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 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stripcreator[edit]

• Delete this was actually deleted before (See Here) but it was so long ago (October 2005) that I wasn't sure if I should just put up a speedy deletion tag. The article as is, is just an advertisement for a site with over 250K alexa ranking. [6] If this article is deleted (which it likely will) there should also be a ((deletedpage)) tag added to stop the members from that place from recreating it. Jersey Devil 02:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and put tag, per nom Tony Bruguier 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete, non-notable, and protect it from recreation. --Terence Ong 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, and protect from re-creation Nortelrye 05:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:51, 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 merged back to List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign, and deleted. Mailer Diablo 08:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malaysia-Indonesia Confrontation Victoria Cross recipients[edit]

listcruft, unedited for more than 1 year Tony Bruguier 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, even today's edit didn't improve it much Nortelrye 05:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. According to List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign, this article will only ever have 1 entry, no matter how badly we try to expand it. As a result, it's unnecessary listcruft. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Kukini 18:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, see above. --Doug (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, degenerate list. Quatloo 05:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Part of a series which should be complete. CalJW 10:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Forshaw[edit]

Delete, Smacks of pure vanity. claim about nobel prize nomination is unverifiable as nominations are secret for 50 years. other than that, nothing else can make this fellow more than an ordinary physicist. Montco 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity page - Green Giant 02:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tony Bruguier 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sounds like a cool guy, but this is vanity. DarthVader 04:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Was speedied under another name [7], IIRC, I was the one who tagged it, and I believe it was complete bullocks. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As an alumnus of that university department, I can confirm that this guy is non-notable. Oldelpaso 11:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't believe this is vanity. It reads like a send-up of the guy. It's material taken from his university website page, apart from the Nobel Prize bit, and this:

"The following is taken from Jeff's website in his own words, listen to the genius."

That doesn't sound like the subject of the article talking. It sounds like a disaffected student. Tyrenius 14:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh MacKenzie[edit]

nn, vanity Tony Bruguier 02:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete personal CV - Green Giant 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Resume made into two pargraphs. --Fuhghettaboutit 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable, vanity. Montco 02:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nn, vanity. DarthVader 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 04:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Green Giant, Fuhghettaboutit. Samaritan 08:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Parsons[edit]

nn, vanity Tony Bruguier 02:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more vanity or possibly even advertisement - Green Giant 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Montco 02:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:36, 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 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agile Alliance[edit]

nn [8] Tony Bruguier 02:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as nn-advertisement. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as an advertisement Nortelrye 05:36, 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plain Old Java Object[edit]

Unsure about this one, but it looks to me like a jargon entry that is not that notable. I'd say it's a weak delete Tony Bruguier 02:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well known term in the Java circles. There are books about this [9] [10] Weregerbil 10:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well known term. --MaNeMeBasat 07:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful info ArgusCavalcante 12:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep good definition of POJO 19:12, 20 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Middle School[edit]

nn Tony Bruguier 03:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Not notable enough. DarthVader 04:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete It takes a very strong case to keep a middle school for an encyclopedia. TeKE 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep most schools are notable. bbx 04:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I believe the school debate only really concluded that high schools were borderline notable. I might vote to keep if it was a decent article. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 05:34 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't believe that all high schools are notable. Elementary schools certainly aren't. Montco 06:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per well established precedent. --Rob 10:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I ask that you please, please don't consider precedent a reason for an AfD. With a thousand articles deleted every day through speedy, prod and here, context for the current situation is applicable. Sure, there are other middle school articles that may exsist because they escaped notice of the process, or notability exist (which isn't an official guideline either). Seriously, do you think paraphrase "Walker Elementary School in Oregon has a 1,000 students. They have education and sports" is the foundation for anything? TeKE 00:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly will consider precedent. I don't beleive in acting randomly. Over the last year there have been a huge number of school AFDs. The overwhelming bulk of schools (including ones like this) are kept. It's not "happen stance" that elem+middle schools are kept. It's the norm. Deletion is the exception, and almost always involves non-verifiability. Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive and Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive/2005 shows the standard is it to keep all verifiable real K-12 schools (including elems and middle schools). Schools are in Wikipedia, because they are wanted, not because they "escaped notice". It is very intentional that school articles are created, and kept. Incidently, I don't vote to keep preschools normally, because I feel there is a clear precedent to delete them. I think we need to follow precedent, in order to provide reasonable and predictable results. --Rob 01:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rational response. I was looking for evidence on votes to provide concensus, and I respect your POV. TeKE 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, real middle school. Kappa 10:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it's a real school. Tyrenius 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Montco. RexNL 14:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge w/district unless article expanded and referenced. Currently fails WP:VER and WP:SCH. Gateman1997 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing can fail WP:SCH. It's a Wikiproject. The old Wikipedia:Schools page is a rejected guideline, since nobody could agree on anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong, WP:SCH did have a proposal out... and this fails it. Gateman1997 06:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, a proposal that isn't supported by consensus (or pretty much anyone, any more) doesn't carry a lot of weight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I still support it as it was the only good faith compromise brought to date. Gateman1997 17:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or, failing that, merge to district or high school articles). "There's a school named X" isn't an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rob. Jcuk 23:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable subject. Hawkestone 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's see an end to these tiresome nominations. Many school articles are created every day. The odd one is nominated and usually it doesn't get deleted (never if it is a high school). What is the point of going on with these nominations. There are many classes of article on the margins of notability, but only this one gets picked on regardless of how many nominations fail. CalJW 10:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're citing a subpage for a rejected policy proposal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, schools are more notable than train stations, and train stations are by policy notable per se. Monicasdude 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which policy is that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I wish there were an article on the school district so that we could merge this two-liner article there, but we don't. Well, it is an article at least, and precedent on schools is clear, so keep and hope for a merge or expansion later. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not really meet even the minimal suggested standard for a school. This could probably be speedied as an empty article. Vegaswikian 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with district article. I'm from Oregon and can verify this is a real school. --Liface 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Isn't it about time to rethink this "all schools are notable" nonsense? Hirudo 06:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Schools are notable and without question worthy of an encyclopedia which aims to be the sum of all human knowledge. Bahn Mi 17:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave O'Loughlin[edit]

Non-notable vanity. AlistairMcMillan 03:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn, vanity Tony Bruguier 03:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete this and related photographs per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 20:51, 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 08:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe nine[edit]

non-notable club, advertising tone Tfine80 03:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn, advertisement Tony Bruguier 03:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this isn't a business directory --Berger 04:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Jordanmills 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rendcomb College[edit]

nn Tony Bruguier 03:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete. Not notable. DarthVader 04:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep as per Rob. DarthVader 13:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - sounds like an ad. Montco 06:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per well established precedent for schools. --Rob 10:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Weak assertion of notability provided through alumni, but I'll bite. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Rob Jcuk 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As with any senior school. Hawkestone 00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per school precedent. The article is also well-sourced. Carioca 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High school CalJW 10:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete.--Adam ^(talk) 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avila (journalist)[edit]

Possible vanity page SDC 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to determine if she is notable or not. Google gives so many results for the Spanish city or St. Teresa of Ávila (or things named after them) that I can't find her among them. However, this is so POV and full of hero-worship that I doubt there's a salvageable article in there. Fan1967 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - this is clearly nonsense. Look at the history for even worse examples. Nuke article from orbit. Georgewilliamherbert 06:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasspeedy delete as nonsense. JDoorjam Talk 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grape quarter water[edit]

This article is better suited for a MySpace post or an Urban Dictionary entry, but that would mean it would have to exist. No pages come up when searching for "grape quarter water" on Google or Yahoo!. Tokachu 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --soUmyaSch 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as nonsense. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I threw a ((db-nonsense)) tag on there. -zappa 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I deleted it. JDoorjam Talk 04:26, 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 for now, with the proviso that evidence of notability is sorely needed and another AFD would be entirely appropriate in the near future if none is found. Turnstep 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie (program)[edit]

Appears to be nothing more than an obscure, single-author piece of BeOS freeware software, with no evidence given for widespread use or notability. It's not even mentioned in the list of BeOS programs. If evidence of notability comes to light, then I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination, but until then I suggest that we should delete it. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article could be expanded, (which I'll do), and I might be able to get sme notability. All software articles should be kept in my opinion. Linuxerist L/T 17:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the (unmentioned) author is Pavel Císler, who created much of the BeOS interface (Tracker, the desktop/file manager that everyone uses, was mostly his work), and currently works on Finder at Apple. He's notable enough as software developers go. We have many articles on potentially un-notable pieces of software due to the notability of their authors. --Kiand 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, however, think the plugins list needs to be a seperate article, nor should there be articles about individual plugins. --Kiand 19:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional Keep - let's see if there really is evidence of notability. - Runcorn 21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some evidence of notability is provided. The El Reyko 21:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what 'evidence' means, but Eddie featured heavily in the BeOS Bible, a fairly hefty dead-tree book published in 1999 about BeOS, including a 5-page interview with its author (although not as heavily as its then-commercial competitor Pe (text editor), due to the books heavy inclination towards pay-software...). I'd be willing to suggest that its as notable, if not more so, than many of the entries on the list of text editors. --Kiand 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate on this? It could well be the evidence we're looking for, but I'm afraid that I can't find "Eddie" listed in the table of contents. I would suggest that the interview you mentioned goes more towards establishing the notability of Pavel Císler than about any particular piece of software he created. Indeed, perhaps what we could do is to summarise the contents of this article and merge it into Pavel Císler—who does appear to be notable. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That TOC and the book beside me don't agree about contents in all cases so don't take it as canon, but its mentioned along with other text tools; during the text on Pe; during the StyledEdit section, and a few other places. --Kiand 01:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline in Wikipedia:Notability (software) requires that: "The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news media, a book, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, or an article in a reputed technical magazine. A single such publication that is specifically about the software is sufficient; for publications that mention the software while not being specifically about them, and for publications of lower profile (such as a local newspaper or an e-zine), multiple such works are needed." So this helps, but it would probably not be sufficient on its own. Do you know of any other references? I've done a Google search, but I coudn't find anything that appeared to meet these criteria. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. Mailer Diablo 08:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Son of a bitch[edit]

More appropriate for wiktionary and a neologism to boot. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and imrove, it cane certainly become more than a dicdef. Widespread "neologisms" (created during the early-mid 20th century?) are notable. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 05:35 (UTC)
• Keep, there are dozens of articles on wikipedia for all manner of swear word/phrases albeit this one could do with some improvment. Keep the article and add it to List of profanities. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 10:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A phrase such of this is more than just a word, it requires more than a dictionary definition, ergo it can be encyclopedic and not dictionaryish Robdurbar 16:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand as a notable phrase that's been around for a while. — TKD::Talk 17:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't understand why you're all voting to keep. Don't you know what a son of a bitch is? Isn't WP:WINAD policy, or has that been rejected now? Erik the Rude 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dicdef -Doc ^ask? 23:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ↑ We are quite aware of the slang usage of the term "son of a bitch." Despite the literally meaning, the slang term is a very popular neologistic phrase in the world today and not a simple dictionary definition. (Я не имею—никакой жизни 23:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Strong keep. The Oxford English Dictionary Online's entry for "son of a bitch" is two pages long when copied into MS Word. You can say it brings nothing to the table now, but there are at least five meanings and numerous spellings not included in the article currently. I wouldn't even want to know what a slang dictionary like Partridge's would have to say about it. If anything, it needs dramatic expansion.--Primetime 03:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Dictionary that's why it should be on Wiktionary and not here and why this article shouldn't exist here. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

↑ I think you're failing to see the point of the opposition to your nomination and opinions toward deletion. There are many notable words and neologism in Wikipedia that are more than mere dictionary definitions. By your logic, the words fuck and bitch should also be deleted. (Я не имею—никакой жизни File:Nazi Swastika.svg 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• I agree. An encyclopedia is a reference work that deals with all fields of knowledge. The word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia meaning "general education". All encyclopedias define at least some vocabulary terms and some even have embedded dictionaries (e.g., Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana). Besides, it is not a dictionary definition. See "good" to see what a dictionary definition looks like.--Primetime 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Further, although WP:WINAD, there is potential for well-known swear phrases/words to be expanded into encyclopedic articles discussing etymology, usage and social acceptance over time, etc., that a simple dictionary definition does not have. — TKD::Talk 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless improved. Is there third-party research on the usage of this term? If so, let's cite it already. -- Visviva 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Keep votes like the ones above are why I could never, ever take Wikipedia seriously. We're disagreeing on fundamental definitions here, and if you don't know that adding a bunch of alternative spellings and trivial usage examples to a dictionary definition gets it no closer to being an encyclopedia article, well, I can't see agreeing with you guys on anything, even the color of the sky. Somebody might as well get rid of WP:WINAD, because it's not being followed at all here. I just hope the closing admin ignores the votes that go contrary to policy, but that happens only very rarely. We're on the slippery slope, people. Enjoy the ride down. Erik the Rude 16:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll let the consenses decide that; thanks for your concern. (Я не имею—никакой жизни File:Nazi Swastika.svg 17:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• • Ignore all rules. - if the community decides that there can be a decent article then frankly, policy is just a son of a bitch. Robdurbar 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Right now this is no better than a dictionary entry, and I don't think it's a very notable phrase, but it's possible it will grow into a lengthy encyclopedic article detailing historical events/figures and controvery surrounding the phrase, etc., full of relevant citations and captions. I think it should be deleted at some point if it does not improve significantly, but I don't see any urgency to delete it this instant. –Tifego^(t) _{17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete per WP:WINAD AmiDaniel (Talk) 20:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - dicdef/wangi 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep; I despise dicdefs, but the FDR quote is a nice touch. Melchoir 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, to clarify, I don't think this is clearly a dicdef. Melchoir 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ignore all rules, the five major curse words are important. TeKE 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Bitch, until such time as a substantial core of verifiable content emerges. Per usual arguments for relatives of the famous. :-) -- Visviva 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. A lot of potential here.  Grue  20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's already more than just a dictdef. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not establish the cultural significance of the term beyond the cultural significance of any other terms in the English language. Cedars 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's clear that people can't stand the thought of this pathetic little excuse of a dictdef being deleted I have proposed on Talk:Son of a bitch that it be merged into Bitch which already has mention of derogatory uses of the term. Any discussions regarding that (unless changing a vote here to merge or voting to merge here) should be directed there. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I respect your idea to move the article into the Bitch article, but I believe for merging articles, one should discuss the merging in the discussion page of which is it proposed to be merged. Therefore, we should direct comments to Talk:Bitch to incorporate opinions from that article as well. — Я не имею никакой жизни File:Nazi Swastika.svg 06:18, 06:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Oops yeah, that's my mistake. The template points to talk:bitch not talk son of a bitch so discussions should be done there. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is a dicdef... pure and simple.--Isotope23 20:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, CSD A7

Ernest Raymond Jones[edit]

I put the ((importance)) tag here a month ago and there haven't been any edits since. In fact, the only user who has edited this page has Jones in his username and is probably a relative of this dude. A search of google turns up little new. The only page that links here is the list of RHIT alumni Ergo, delete -Wiccan Quagga 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to goon. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hired goons[edit]

Not a term in common usage. Delete as probable Simpsonscruft. Redirect to goons, perhaps. Wiccan Quagga 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not referenced. Tyrenius 14:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to goon. A dicdef at best, and not a very reliable one. Haikupoet 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications in biology[edit]

The topic is so broad, it is inconceivable that any treatment could do it justice. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All peer-reviewed biological journals & influential papers & text books related to biology? A list this large would be useless to a researcher.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. --Tone 12:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per (aeropagitica). — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per (aeropagitica) SorryGuy 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not a list of all publications. It is a list of important publications. All that is needed is for the Biology community here to decide on criteria for importance. This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. --Bduke 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but clean up. These are the key publications, the criteria for inclusion are clearly noted. There are several similar articles with key texts as well, see for example List of publications in mathematics. --Salix alba (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Inherently and insolubly PoV, and unmaintainable, but useful information. Conditional Keep, but only in WP namespace. Septentrionalis 00:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Salix. -- Visviva 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family fun pack for sims[edit]

Advertisement for upcoming product. De-((prod))ed by anon. Delete as spam. GTBacchus^(talk) 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also the title would need to change if it is kept as the official title seems to be "the Sims2 Family Fun Stuff Pack". By the way what is the "4 out of 7" in the article about, is it a rating or something else? --blue520 06:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete crystal balls. Tyrenius 15:43, 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 FCYTravis deleted "Big mouth corner" (nn). --blue520 07:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big mouth corner[edit]

nn club. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:25, 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 Stiffilis deleted by FCYTravis. -- blue520 07:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stiffilis[edit]

hoaxcruft. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Nonsense, repost, hoax, ect ect ect. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 06:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete --blue520 07:06, 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 15:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masjid Tun Abdul Aziz[edit]

parishcruft (sort of, more like mosquecruft) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems non-notable; nothing to distinguish this mosque from all of the other small ones. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The main mosque of a city of 450,000 people, so it's the rough equivalent of a cathedral, but there is no such designation in Islam. The nominator's suggestion that it is the equivalent of a standard parish church seems to be quite wrong and misleading. Hawkestone 00:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hawkestone Monicasdude 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Major mosque in major city. --Gene_poole 05:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion for repost. enochlau (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bepenfriends[edit]

advertisement, possibly copyvio from Bepenfriends (have not checked). Site is non notable date cruft. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and protect from re-creation. This has been speedied at least once and I want to say twice. Montco 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This really doesn't need to go through AfD, especially if it's already been deleted before. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete was not aware of that. Change my vote to speedy, will also be adding db-repost to article ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:53, 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 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic Engineering[edit]

Delete. I googled this term and found numerous different definitions for it, including transexual operations, sex toys, and mind control, but not the stated definition. The article is poorly written and is not neutral POV. Ricaud 03:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Same results as you using google, but I would note that excluding wikipedia, only 94 unique hits are found. So even if the term was accurate, it would appear non-notable. With these results, not a candidate for transwiki. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not notable or accurate; wikipedia is not the place for this misinformation. 68.32.34.152 04:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Terence Ong 06:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inaccurate dictdef, pointless to redirect to prostitute as the neologism is not specific.  (aeropagitica)  07:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. Also, you don't need a four-year college degree to practice it, unlike mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and software engineering. There isn't even any calculus involved. --Elkman - ^(talk) 14:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism misusing the term engineering. Pavel Vozenilek 17:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't need another word for Prostitute. Somebody, maybe someone who has sex for money and doesn't like being called a "whore," seems to be throwing stuff at Wikipedia to see what sticks to create standing for a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete under WP:SMOKINGCRACK. No? Okay, just get rid of it as original research or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Haikupoet 04:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: Neologism completely divorced from the legal meaning of engineering. Seems to be just a definition of something like "sex worker advocacy". Peter Grey 07:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism stretching the meaning of "engineering". Herostratus 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as reposted AfD'd material. -- RHaworth 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic Engineering[edit]

neologism, apparently made up term: Google search in comes up with less than 900 hits. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Withdraw, I've changed to Speedy delete, repost ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:07, 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 08:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gang of creeps[edit]

nn band, appx 500 google hits. No national airplay ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, airplay was local, does not have two full length albums. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 07:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dose not reach WP:MUSIC.--blue520 13:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above Trebor 14:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator and nobody has advocated deletion. kingboyk 23:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silverknowes and many others that are Edinburgh related[edit]

Delete Non-notable. Really, why must there be individual articles for these? Ned Scott 07:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above: Jock's Lodge, Gogarloch, South Gyle railway station, Bonaly, Burdiehouse, Wester Broom, Pilton, Edinburgh, Powderhall, Drumbrae, Piershill, Fernieside, Craigcrook, Blackhall, Edinburgh, Trinity, Edinburgh, Mortonhall, Murrayfield, Longstone.

I'd be willing to support a merge if someone can make a reasonable argument for it. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all in principle. Place and railway station articles are automatically acceptable. Though in this case some merging may be advisable. I would suggest a criterion of one article for each postal district (but not, please not with a title of EHx!). For example we already have Meadowbank, Edinburgh which is EH8 so Jock's Lodge should be merged with that. -- RHaworth 08:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all. These are inherantly notable and verifiable, though as above, some should be merged ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, parts of towns and cities are often far better populated and far more notable than many small villages, but for some reason villages don't seem to get AFD'd. I too have misgivings about a lot of geographical place articles, but it does seem rather unfair to single out Edinburgh. Given time and research, all of these topics have the potential to be good additions to the encyclopaedia. I for one would be very interested to know about the history, topography and demographics of each of these places. (Declaration of interest: I am from Edinburgh; but then so are nearly half a million other people, so there is a potential readership out there.) --Mais oui! 09:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all, places such as these are beyond the usual subjective nominations and debates appropriate for AfD. Interested parties with local knowledge will expand, merge etc. as appropriate. Deizio 09:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all. These are all verifiable and merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Many of these Edinburgh suburbs were distinct villages in their own right with significant history. Per comments above, over time they will come to be expanded into decent articles - Colinton is a good example (compare to original stub). That many are stubs right now is not sufficient grounds for deletion. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Deizio. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Cactus.man although I'm not quite as optimistic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• We'd be keeping these by default if they were still individual villages; it seems odd to delete them because they've grown! They all have potential for expansion - Marchmont or Merchiston are decent examples - and they're more definite areas than it might at first seem; Edinburgh is more clearly divided in this regard than many UK cities, IME. Shimgray | talk | 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To follow through on my above comment - the only reason for nominating these seems to be that they're stubs. Areas of exactly comparable importance with fleshed-out articles seem to be acceptable - but the notability of something, and the suitability for an article, should be somewhat independent of what's currently been written. Shimgray | talk | 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as per above. Joelito 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Cactus.man and Angus McLellan. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all. The notability varies, but some are definitely notable. --MacRusgail 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With this much support I have more faith that these articles really do have a future. When I was looking at the edit histories of some of them and saw they basically had creation and a stub edit, I was a bit worried. Silverknowes in particular got to me when the only thing it said about the place was that it had a golf course. But if this many Wikipedians really believe these articles have a future, then I have no problem with the articles. Is there a way to retract my nominations or something? It's doubtful that we'd have to wait a week to see the end results. -- Ned Scott 19:54, 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 08:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Korea Tours[edit]

nn advertisement cruft. Nice of them to mention wikipedia though. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Advertisment for a nn-tour company. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 07:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertisement. Montco 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and is there some way to co-nominate the user User:NewKoreaTours for deletion / blocking as well? -- Ned Scott 07:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spamtastic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Chaos[edit]

Non-notable, only has 200 members. Appears to be a vanity page. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a place to gain fame. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What harm is it doing. Its not a vanity page or something to gain fame. It something of things that are collectively remembered, known and sometimes treasured.
• This should not be deleted As the creator of the article, I attempted to make this article objective and completely factual about the site. By adding this article on wikipedia, we do not want fame or fortune, considering it's a nonprofit site. We would be honored just to be recognized on wikipedia, and the members pledge that by adding this article, we do not intend to abuse this great community and its articles. Jywayne 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)jywayne[reply]
• Delete: The article does not assert notability, and the website has an Alexa ranking of 684,719. --Hetar 09:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --blue520 13:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable Lylum 00:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete They are not trying to gain fame or anything. All they are doing is trying to keep their memories sacred by using the power of wikipedia. Also, the info is in a good and appropriate manner. I think that it should be allowed to stay.
• Don't delete I think it is a well written article while accounting good memories. If someone needed information on them, then now they can get 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Of Fools (band)[edit]

Clearly non-notable band, haven't even released an album yet. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failure of WP:BAND and WP:NOT A CRYSTAL BALL. --Hetar 07:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet criteria in WP:MUSIC Trebor 15:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Alliance[edit]

Non-notable internet empire. -- RHaworth 08:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per above. -- Karada 11:56, 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 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shehzad Bhunnoo[edit]

Non-notable, possible vanity Mtiedemann 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this as non-notable and mendacious vanity. One of the editors of this article, one "Shehzad Bhunnoo", claims "I am not he. Just a fan," which is really extraordinary. --Lockley 22:24, 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 transfer to Wikibooks. However, the originator of the article has said that he will expand the article. If that does not happen, and somebody wants to transfer it, please drop me a line and I will delete it at that time. Turnstep 02:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creed of the Noncommissioned Officer[edit]

• Transfer: Nothing more than a word for word quote of the creed, belongs at Wikibooks. --Hetar 08:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transfer as per nom. Tyrenius 14:52, 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 13:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtophobia[edit]

Original research, completely unsourced. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete While this may well be an actual category of bigotry, the name is clearly made up and the article (as noted) is wildly unsourced. Unless it can be shaped up quickly, it should probably go. IrishGuy 09:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely unsourced and crammed full of POV & OR. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism, OR - RexNL 15:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it almost sounds like it belongs on Uncyclopedia at some points. Arzikl 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Delete; this was entirely lifted from an older version of Anglophobia. IP Address 23:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anry Nemo[edit]

Non-notable artist; unverifiable. Article calls him "popular" but his notability seems to be confined to deviantART and similar websites. 684 Google hits, lots of blogs but no reliable sources in evidence.

For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al

Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--blue520 13:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment i would say he is well known outside of DA - i wasn't aware that he is on DA or gfxartist at all. Actually i'd say that lots of people know his art without knowing it's from him. His gallery (currently offline - here's a partial mirror - [11]) will come as first page (from 500k hits) on google just on search term 'anry' alone. If i'll have time, i'll try to lookup some russian sources on him, but my russian is not very good. I won't vote because i am inactive on wp for long time, i just thought you should know this.- JohnyDog 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That first result which pops up doesnt function and redirects to a webhosting service. Also a quick flick through some of the other results lead to other uses of the word anry (or in one case what seems to be another person using the same name). Yes he has other galleries featuring his work, but I could quite easily place some of my photos on multiple galleries and websites and use that to claim 'notability' for my work. What I think is the issue for these artists who have been tagged AfD is that although they may be extremely talented artists they lack further impact or notability beyond these websites which feature them. Bleedman and Linda Bergkvist havent been nominated and I think thats because their articles show that they have been published or involved in significant work beyond the production of work for these sites like DeviantART. Tyhopho 20:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly why I haven't nominated those two. Melchoir 20:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Hetar 20:37, 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 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackeri[edit]

Non-notable artist; unverifiable. Notability seems to be confined to deviantART and similar websites. Roughly 100k Google hits, depending on what you search for; lots of blogs and dA pages but no reliable sources in evidence.

For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al

Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--blue520 13:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NN. SorryGuy 00:39, 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 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bri-chan[edit]

Non-notable artist; unverifiable. Notability seems to be confined to deviantART. 63k Google hits; no reliable sources in evidence.

For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al

Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --blue520 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NN. SorryGuy 00:40, 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 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Conway[edit]

Non-notable artist; unverifiable. Notability seems to be confined to deviantART. 41k Google hits, most of which are about someone else; no reliable sources on this individual in evidence.

For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al

Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --blue520 13:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:41, 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 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pu-sama[edit]

Non-notable artist; unverifiable. Notability seems to be confined to deviantART. 66k Google hits, almost all of which are apparently dA pages; no reliable sources in evidence.

For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al

Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --blue520 13:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:41, 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 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilence[edit]

Non-notable artist; unverifiable. Notability seems to be confined to deviantART. 100k Google hits, many of which are dA pages; no reliable sources in evidence.

For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al

Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--blue520 13:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:42, 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 speedily deleted as failing WP:CORP. FCYTravis 09:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dryic, Dryice, DryicE-corp, and Dryice-corp[edit]

• Delete: These pages are all the same. NN corporation that does not meet WP:CORP. --Hetar 09:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertisements written in the first-person. --CrypticBacon 09:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spamtastic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 17:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Dale[edit]

Non-notable poorly written bio. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. seems to not reach WP:BIO.--blue520 13:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Knucmo2 17:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, VanityCruft. Stunned to see this has been around since November. Deizio 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick A. Kerry[edit]

Not notable for himself, add info to Richard Kerry and/or John Kerry. Arniep 11:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category. I'm convinced by Deiz's argument below that on this one, it's not that notable. So no objection here.--Mike Selinker 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I say NO. Delete. The El Reyko 21:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign is a bit strong. The category advertises that it's subjects are not notable, and I was about to go through the category and nominate those which are indeed nn myself. It's called cleaning up/enforcing our guidelines and policies, not a "campaign". --kingboyk 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "campaign" turns out to be more loaded than I intended. What I meant was, all of the articles were nominated at once (and, of course, in seven different spots), rather than determining the success of the category first. I'm not happy with that, as I'd rather not see a category used as the basis to delete an article. --Mike Selinker 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Worthy of a mention in his brother's article but I don't believe he's notable per WP:BIO. --kingboyk 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely nn save for famous descendants. Everything in this article is already mentioned at Richard Kerry. Mike Selinker, I'm confused - are you voting keep to make a point just because you're interpreting this as a bad-faith nomination, or because you have reason to believe that Frederick A. Kerry meets WP:BIO? The disputed category is entirely redundant, as committing suicide and being related to a famous person does not make for a WP article, that comes from at least being involved in a newsworthy suicide, a different criteria altogether, plus the cat authors have admitted it is designed to contain non-notable people, and that they hope the articles within it will be used to conduct original research. Deizio 22:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm the category's author. You have inaccurately divined my "hopes." I created the category, after discussing it with User:Michael David, as a method of categorizing the existing articles.--Mike Selinker 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, doesn't answer my question. Do you personally believe that Frederick A. Kerry meets the criteria set out at WP:BIO? Deizio 10:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking whether I believe an article in a category defined as "non-notable people" passes a notability test? If it were part of a category called "The Kerrys" (as opposed to John Kerry), I'd vote to keep it in a heartbeat. Famous relations are fine with me, as it fleshes out the character of otherwise notable people.--Mike Selinker 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mike, that's not how the project works. Individuals must satisfy the criteria at WP:BIO, regardless of which category they have been put in, who they are related to or the reasons behind the creation of their article or its nomination for deletion. Voting "keep" when you do not believe a subject is inherently notable is usually a violation of WP:POINT, especially when trying to "save" an article or category you have created or edited. Information on notable individuals (including important events involving family members which have a bearing on the individual's life) should be "fleshed out" on their own page. However, I'm sure you've figured all this out for yourself by now. Deizio 16:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here for a while, Deiz, so among the things I've figured out for myself is that WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy. It's not the only reason an article might need separation from a main article. One reason might be to avoid clutter in a complex article. Another reason might be that the subject is not as significant as the main article. The notability test is one reason why you might believe an article should be deleted, but it isn't a reason that all users must follow for every article. Again, I didn't create any of these articles, but I think all (except maybe Daisy Keith, which is the stubbiest of stubs) are intriguing, and thus I vote to keep them (and thus try to categorize them in some useful way). Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 19:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if they alone don't meet the likes of WP:BIO, then they don't merit an article of their own, so add their information to their notable relative's article. I'm not dismissing what you and Michael have identified as being pointless or uninteresting, but I don't think the framework of a general encyclopedia is the place to pursue it. Perhaps a third-party webpage or website linked to Wikipedia...?  Regards, David Kernow 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIO is indeed a guideline, and sometimes notable people don't fit, but I'm still wondering: what is the significance - or intrigue - of this piece? The suicide took place 22 years before John Kerry was born, and when Richard Kerry (who seems to have written one book and had a decent career as a diplomat) was six years old. If there was documented evidence that the event had affected the life of a notable person, this might be something. But there isn't, its still just a guy who killed himself and whose grandson would eventually run for President. There is is a very big difference between Fred Kerry and, for example, Cheyenne Brando, whose entire life was influenced by her relation to a celebrity, and whose newsworthy suicide has been linked to it. Mike, much love. Deizio 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, that's a very good point, Deiz. It's possible my interest in this one is influenced by Hannelore Kohl and Cheyenne Brando, which might be more interesting than this one. But this seems complete enough for at least me to be neutral on it. (Of course, I never want to delete any article.)--Mike Selinker 03:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing sufficiently notable for a general encyclopedia in this life summary. David Kernow 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Somebody's grandfather? Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)
• Delete Relative of a notable individual is not sufficient to confer notabiliity. JoshuaZ 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Keith[edit]

Not notable in herself, add info to Brian Keith. Arniep 11:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.Revising my vote to abstain. This is barely a stub, and doesn't have anywhere near the depth of the other articles nominated for deletion in this batch. So it doesn't make sense for me to say "Keep" on it.--Mike Selinker 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The El Reyko 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. --kingboyk 22:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Frederick A. Kerry Deizio 23:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Brian Keith per Arniep. David Kernow 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zinaida Volkova[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable herself, add any important info to Leon Trotsky. Arniep 11:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- well, I wrote the current articles about Leon Trotsky and his family, so I am probably biased :-) -- but I wouldn't object to changing this article and the one about her sister, Nina Nevelson, to redirects and moving the contents to Trotsky. Ahasuerus 16:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.--Mike Selinker 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- and let my vote be delete on all the other "Famous people's relatives who have commited suicide" up on AfD because I can't be bothered voting on them all individually. The El Reyko 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with merge & redir, an interesting life but no assertion of notability other than famous relative. Again, per nom and Frederick A. Kerry Deizio 23:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Simplify and merge with Leon Trotsky. David Kernow 01:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Leon Trotsky. --MaNeMeBasat 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, do not merge.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Do not merge; not likely to be a good fit with Leon Trotsky. Septentrionalis 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. KNewman 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : If not delete or merge, then what's notable about Zinaida Volkova that doesn't have some association with Trotsky?  Regards, David Kernow 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, Yakov Dzhugashvili wasn't notable for anything that didn't have some association with his father, yet we still have a separate article on him. Why not on Volkova? We cannot possibly cram information on every somewhat notable person who had association with Trotsky into one article, can we? Anyway, I am an inclusionist, therefore I am biased when it comes to AfDs, but as I am entitled to my bias I voted to keep the article where it is.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've left my vote to stand as it's to simplify/merge rather than delete. Thanks for your thoughts, David 17:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, there has been a low level controversy over the nature of her relationship with Trotsky as of late. Some documents seem to suggest that she was mentally unstable at the end and had a crush on her father, which may have contributed to her suicide. It wouldn't be too hard to get it all compiled and NPOV'd, but I am not sure if it would help make her "notable" for the purposes of this discussion. Ahasuerus 18:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, independent if limited notability. Monicasdude 23:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, do not merge.—Vald 22:22, 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.