< April 16 April 18 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 17[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp Stiktion[edit]

This is another amongst the non notable webcomics which proliferate on Wikipedia. You can find the comic here, and it's 12 member forum here. Smack jeeves is a small webcomic hosting site with an Alexa ranking of over 100,000 and the pulp stiktion page isn't even mentioned on their report. Google gives back 11 unique hits. - Hahnchen 00:17, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here Is A Question[edit]

Here is a Question, is this webcomic of note? It's hosted at stage-select.com, what that portal site is for I don't know, but you can see the comic here, however, the comic subdomain is not mentioned at all in the 300k+ Alexa ranking traffic report. The website is labelled JNVComics, and that terms gives back 9 google hits. Here is the answer - No. - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: With an Alexa rating in the 350K range for the host site? I'm certainly willing to credit that the comic has a topic on a forum where all twenty people who read it avidly discuss it. RGTraynor 15:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind giving us some links referencing those followings, while I'm thinking about it? RGTraynor 18:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point Guardian[edit]

This webcomic can be found here and has no Alexa rank. (However, it probably has an alternate Comic Genesis mirror). Is this a notable website? Has it seen serious review in respectable sources? Google gives 182 hits for "point guardian", however, the majority of these hits have nothing to do with the webcomic in question. - Hahnchen 00:17, 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. A group of 4 people with no assertion or indication of notability. kingboyk 00:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TTK[edit]

Fraternity with only 4 members. Delete as non-notable. Speedy/Prod removed so listing here. exolon 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Stern[edit]

Gaius is a friend of mine, so this AFD is nothing personal. However, I don't believe he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for living people. The only article that links to this is Carper Award, and whether the Carper Award is notable or not, I don't think its notability implies that everyone who has received the award is notable. The article doesn't mention that he co-founded the predecessor organization to the Academic Competition Federation; however, I don't think that affiliation automatically makes him notable either. Perhaps someone will edit the article so as to better assert the notability of the subject, but I don't think it's possible. Delete. Catamorphism 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow dancing[edit]

Delete content-free dicdef ("Slow dancing is when a couple dance slowly"?) At best might be transwikied to Wiktionary. Was speedied, then prod'ed, each time the original editor removed the notice without comment Gwernol 01:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omerta (Online)[edit]

spam. prod removed by author. Bachrach44 01:48, 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 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LIC[edit]

- Originally a disambiguation page with the bio of a rapper being added later, the disambiguation content has been moved to a new page LIC (disambiguation). The remaining content on the rapper LIC seems not to meet notability criteria guideline WP:MUSIC. Delete.--blue520 01:50, 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 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Riggen[edit]

Appears to be a NN musician, according to guidelines in WP:MUSIC. No entries in the All Music Guide, and the hits that show up via Yahoo! imply he is a lead singer to an unsigned band [1] which doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia nor on All Music Guide. --Ataricodfish 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Videohypertransference[edit]

Aside from Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors "Videohypertransference" does not appear to exist. I'm not sure whether this counts as original research or just nonsense, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong here. Delete AlistairMcMillan 02:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete - it's a neologism, bordering on psychotic. Parts of the text are good, but not in an article of this name. - Richardcavell 12:46, 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. Good work, people. DS 15:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia graham[edit]

Delete. Individual fails to meet the guidelines established by Wiki guidelines for academic notability. See WP:PROFTEST. No one has attempted to adhere to the guidelines after a request was made in the article's talk page. Established guidelines are:

  1. The person is regarded as an significant expert in their area by independent sources.
  2. The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
  3. The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality).
  4. The person has published a well-known or high quality academic work.
  5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
  6. The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements.
  7. The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.
  8. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

--Strothra 02:11, 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 05:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag Bodyspray[edit]

Do we really want to list every new product that comes out? That's over 100,000 new products per year. I think we should wait until a product gains some notability (other than self-promotion) before we consider it encyclopedic. As a minimum, this one fails the notability test. In my view, it fails the SPAM test as well. Rklawton 02:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (I think we're about to see viral marketing at work...) Rklawton 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. _-M o P-_ 02:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what? There's nothing notable about a product that's advertised "all the time" Rklawton 03:09, 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 05:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Severin[edit]

Apparently a NN author with no published books by a major publishing house, per Amazon.com. Search at Amazon shows a single collection of short stories released on electronic format only by an independent publisher, #3,290,833 in Books according to their sales. Ataricodfish 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, except that with a sales rank of three million, two hundred and ninety thousand, eight hundred and thirty three -- meaning that in an average week, Amazon sold 0-1 copies -- this did not sell 5,000 copies and it's no different than including a download on an unsigned band's website. --Ataricodfish 15:01, 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 05:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Names[edit]

This article isn't really encyclopedic, but I'm not really sure what category it would fall in, so I wanted to do an AFD to check. Delete. _-M o P-_ 02:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Chinese pet names? Great! More articles to delete! Fishhead64 01:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone remind me to award the Most Original Pet Name award to Shenme. _-M o P-_ 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Gratz[edit]

Article appears to be for a NN author, per guidelines for living people in WP:Bio stating "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Author's only book has not yet been published per Amazon.com [4]. As the creator of this article's screenname is AGratz, this might also be self promotion.--Ataricodfish 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art of Butchery[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Flash Bros.[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. After some investigation of the discussion, the band really does fail WP:MUSIC, and the votes that state it fulfills the criteria there are, well, not right. Proto||type 10:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Undead[edit]

The band still fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing personal. Previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hollywood_Undead. Delete. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting. Thanks. I withdraw my "Keep" vote. That's worth sending in to Google Search Improvement as a bug. --John Nagle 16:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually that mention in Slate isn't quite "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works". It's a brief mention of them as a wannabe band, in a list of "a cast of demi-celebrities of varying talent", not an article that features them.--John Nagle 01:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have limited access to news archives, if they made Slate, they've certainly made something else, and I'm fine with erring on the side of caution on this one considering Slate's reach. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (note that there's nothing stopping someone subsequently merging this, which was a fairly popular choice) Proto||type 10:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hill[edit]

The article seems to be meaningless; it refers to an individual but there is little or no context given PaddyMatthews 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a joke article, like the similar article I found for Michael Hill (21st century composer) and nominated for deletion below. --Ataricodfish 03:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Weak delete My initial Google searches found nothing, although having read the below and now finding the Guiness Book note here [7], it's obviously not a joke article. That having been said, I still don't know if I consider it notable, despite the Guiness record, so my vote for delete remains, however weakly. --Ataricodfish 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PaddyMatthews & Tyrenius, and clean up (remove dessert reference).--blue520 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not convinced that the place for this is in an article of its own - it might make more sense to refer it in the articles on Penetrating head injury or the Phineas Gage case. PaddyMatthews 16:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point Merge into Penetrating head injury or the Phineas Gage as both have content (and positions) that are sutable.--blue520 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Penetrating head injury doesn't have the right tone to include it, and Phineas Gage is about a specific individual. I have put "See also" links between the articles, so anyone interested can get to the other pages. Now it is verified, it might be neater to leave things as they are. It was after all the lack of verification that was the initial problem. I've also removed "dessert", which seems to have been written in error. Tyrenius 17:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tyrenius, I'd lean more towards merging it into the Phineas Gage article myself. If you look at the Similar cases section of the Gage article, there are a series of cases there similar to Hill's. The most notable thing about Hill's case is the size of the knife; as far as I can see he's not any more notable in his own right (or as a medical phenomenon) than the other cases mentioned in the Gage article. PaddyMatthews 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I suppose notable as world record holder. I don't have a strong opinion either way on keep or merge. Tyrenius 17:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Largest Object Removed From Human Skull
The largest object removed from a human skull is a 20.32-cm (8-inch) survival knife, which was plunged into the head of 41-year-old Michael Hill on April 25, 1998. Michael survived the ordeal and the next day astonished doctors by functioning normally, although it was soon clear the knife had caused permanent damage to his memory and paralyzed his left hand. Looking back on the nightmare, the father-of-one says, "I didn't feel the pain initially and it was only when I was at the hospital that it hit me and I felt like my eyes were bulging out. I know people in worse shape than me now and so I consider myself lucky."

The first google result will get you an X-ray of the knife in the skull. I suggest that before voting on AfD it would be beneficial to make some research first. It is not beneficial to Wiki to "guess" whether an article is true or not. Tyrenius 15:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, this is a good examply why WP:W point 2 & 3 are nessary. As for the "guessing", I did try Google (for example "Michael Hill" +attack +April 25, 1998) and seemed to cum up with nothing, which was one of the basis for my "seems to be un-verifiable" response. It just goes to show how the choice of target words can effect google.--blue520 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that it should have been WP:V.--blue520 04:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for the search. Understandable that you thought it was unverifiable in that case. Tyrenius 17:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tyrenius. --Saforrest 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The debate stays open for one week. Bearcat 01:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment;why did you move the article back to the disambiguation,since there are only two cases where there is an article,its easier to direct michael hill to one article,then at the top of that article the link to the other,like i did,what do you think?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Baumann[edit]

Appears to be a NN artist and the only entry by User:Alandbaumann. Yahoo! search for name locates approximately 100 pages including the Wiki articles and mirrors, see [10]. In my opinion, does not meet notibility Per WP:Bio, "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field".--Ataricodfish 02:59, 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 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hill (21st century composer)[edit]

Similar to the Michael Hill article mentioned above and nominated for deletion, article appears to admit to being NN and after a quick search on Yahoo, no listings of this composer could be located. Dates of birth / death in article give the appearance he died at age 14. Likely a joke article. --Ataricodfish 03:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite this, Hill remains nonnotible. I've tried several searches, including one for "Michael Hill" and "Pish-Posh" on Yahoo!, and obtain 5 hits, and only related to this article or completely unrelated [11]. As a musician, Hill does not qualify per WP:Music for inclusion in Wikipedia. As well, the article fails WP:V, since no information can be located to confirm the article. Per WP:V, "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." --Ataricodfish 03:27, 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. DS 16:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of interracial, interethnic or intercultural couples[edit]

I really have no opinion on this article, but it has been called into question on its talk page, so I thought I'd put it up here to get some more opinions. (Ibaranoff24 03:46, 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, anon IP interventions notwithstanding, there's a strong consensus here. Proto||type 11:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People for Change[edit]

God, put yourselves out of your misery and take the People for Change article down. It's not worth a thing one way or the other. Alexa the harlot , who will boost your rank if you advertise with her sponsors, is not really germane to anything. None of this is important, and to those of you who actually took the time and posted "delete", I fart in your general direction. Screw you, and your little internet games, you whiney douchebags! Sincerely Yours 70.32.164.21 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Mike Hickerson , owner, People for Change.[reply]

  • Comment. User's one and only contribution. That being said, while normally I know how I'd vote on this, the partisan meatpuppetry of the CU crowd's disgusted me enough to force an absention from me. RGTraynor 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is about facts. Facts are that people die and statistics change but the notable events of the time remain notable. When approximately 1000 mostly Dean supporters abruptly left left DU in 2004, taking their pocketbooks with them, that was notable at the time- very notable.
Thank you --Tinoirel 4:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Delete" - Few political threads and zero references to Howard Dean on this site - description seems outdated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.145.158 (talk • contribs) .

Note: The above is 70.17.145.158's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 16:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the shoe fits. Someone whose first edit is in an AfD is, in fact, being recruited off the street. RGTraynor 20:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you maybe check your facts more closely before making such unsupported statements? I'd suggest starting with the definitional article about meatpuppets. Katzenjammer 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Obviously, contributors to this entry are people who are interested in the topic and read the Board in question. Why else would they care and how else would they know? The fact that one's first edit is in an AfD means nothing about where this someone comes from; it certainly does not imply recruitment off the street for disruptive purposes (statement, which, in itself borders WP:NPA ).
Could you clarify your meaning a bit so I know whether to jump up and down on you for it? :-) Katzenjammer 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's a startling series of assertions; do you genuinely believe that someone whose very first contribution to Wikipedia is in a AfD voting "KEEP!" (generally with an extremely passionate defense that makes no attempt to address or refute the reasons for the nomination) is in fact not invariably a supporter of the article launching in with the sole purpose of plumping up the totals? There's a honking big template sitting at the top of the page that seems to disagree with you. Whether they intend to be "disruptive," per se, I leave to the mindreaders and soothsayers, but it is unmistakable that their purpose is invariably to defend their article to the end -- or alternately, as in this particular case, fight those they perceive to be their "enemies" on every battleground they can find -- as opposed to dispassionately gauge whether the article satisfies Wikipedia rules and guidelines for inclusion. RGTraynor 16:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see more Delete than Keep votes here, both by first time users. In my opinion, the "Delete" votes are more factual than the "Keep" votes, at least in this case. I agree, some of the "Keep" votes by first time users are quite passionate and kind of irrelevant. So, they are suspicious. But, not just because they are by a first time contributor.
  • Comment: So ... stipulating that JerseyDevil is arguing for the deletion of this article solely out of political motivation (and that's presumably Wrong), it is therefore alright for you to argue for the retention of this article out of political motivation (and that's presumably principled and Right)? Hm, fair enough. RGTraynor 16:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TDSB Gifted Program[edit]

Delete A municipal school district's gifted program doesn't seem overly notable to me. Objectivist-C 04:14, 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 improved version. Mailer Diablo 07:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Currents[edit]

Vanity. Author (who has since been banned) created article on small local newspaper with practically no text about the paper, but uploaded images of three articles, about himself. If anyone can think of a speedy category that fits that would be great. Material is tied to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The Long Island Project. - Fan1967 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there enough of a stub left to justify an article? Local paper with a circulation of 75K seems iffy. Fan1967 04:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brooklyn has 2.5 million people. Seems possible. Gamaliel 04:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EVE Online Acronyms and Abbreviations[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of terms specific to a single game. I put prod on this awhile ago and it was removed; time for a full AfD, then. Cyde Weys 04:58, 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 to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 07:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abyss (Thelema)[edit]

non-notable concept of fringe religion 999 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per my nom means: per my nomination. --Eivindt@c 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City of the Pyramids[edit]

non-notable concept of a fringe religion 999 05:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, this new user's only edit is to this AfD. Weregerbil 12:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This new user's only edits are to Thelema-related AfDs. Weregerbil 12:55, 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 07:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night of Pan[edit]

non-notable concept of a fringe religion 999 05:13, 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 07:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeon (Thelema)[edit]

non-notable concept of a fringe religion 999 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetcricket[edit]

Alexa rank 286,156. Created and primarily written by Duffarama, a staff member, a violation of WP:VANITY and is also self-promotion (WP:NOT). Other staff members have also contributed. Nothing links here, short of a couple userpages. Loaded with crufty information. Articles have been created on team members, that have either been speedied or userfied. Prodded a couple days ago. The tag was removed by an anon, who only addressed a rather small concern, and none of the rest. Drat (Talk) 05:39, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley College Republicans[edit]

If the state-wide organization isn't notable enough for an article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California College Republicans), then a local chapter certainly isn't. Calton | Talk 05:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe they need to band together, for protection. --Calton | Talk 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see anything wrong with it. Checkerpaw 15:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Up until twenty hours ago this user has made only 7 edits.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 17:41, 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 07:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James river assembly[edit]

This page is not acceptable as the church has no significance :: Colin Keigher 06:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Note from the logs: 03:27, April 17, 2006 Slendidlydelicious (New user (Talk | contribs | block))
—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirected NSLE (T+C) at 06:30 UTC (2006-04-17)

Cyclone Monica[edit]

Non-notable cyclone, Australian Category 1, has not even made landfall; see this page for typical layout of non-notable cyclones in the region. This is just plainly superfluos. Delete. TydeNet 06:20, 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Design Automation, Inc.[edit]

Nothing notable here :: Colin Keigher 06:21, 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 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Steinhice[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. One of a series of recently created articles about obscure collegiate "quizbowl" participants for which several AfDs have been filed. RGTraynor 06:22, 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 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Windham[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. One of a series of recently created articles about obscure collegiate "quizbowl" participants for which several AfDs have been filed. RGTraynor 06:25, 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 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MayDay Group[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works For Piano[edit]

Contested ((prod)) brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KURSK[edit]

Google gets almost no relevant hits for this band. Delete unless notability is clearly established. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ORION ERP[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 07:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Buddha Online Library[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.


Subject fails WP:WEB; article is largely an attack page Alphax τεχ 07:50, 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 07:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marks & Spencer locations[edit]

An unencyclopedic list of shops. Listcruft. kingboyk 08:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre as G4 and vandalism, as the user moved it to user page and then reposted.. --Hetar 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeworks The Homecenter[edit]

Blatant advertisement, deleted once before.. &#149;&#149;\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\&#149;&#149; 08:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep - definitely not a delete, may be a merge, but perhaps not since the rewrite. Proto||type 11:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

44 Scotland Street[edit]

This article has nothing of relevance. In fact, I have no idea what it is about. :: Colin Keigher 08:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is a novel, this article needs to be explained more in-depth. :: Colin Keigher 08:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A7: Unremarkable people). TigerShark 12:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Naveed[edit]

NN person :: Colin Keigher 08:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC) -- Re-added comment as author removed it :: Colin Keigher 08:41, 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, if it's not verifiable, it really shouldn't be merged. Proto||type 11:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kallahkhel[edit]

The only source of information on this is Google and it links back to this article. :: Colin Keigher 08:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete per consensus of registered users. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Ross (conductor)[edit]

Dr Ross has impressive credentials and a promising future: however his accomplishments thus far do not merit a Wikipedia entry. The ensembles Dr Ross has conducted are all minor. As far as I can tell, none is a professional group, and none is significant enough to have its own Wikipedia entry (as of the time this article was listed for deletion). The article reads like a resume, which perhaps it is.

Interestingly, Dr Ross doesn't even seem to be the most distinguished orchestral conductor named James Ross: a Google search reveals another James Ross born in Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied with Kurt Masur, Seiji Ozawa and Leonard Bernstein, conducted the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra and has a position at the University of Maryland, but no Wikipedia entry. Grover cleveland 09:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re "interational touring": the article mentions a list of countries where Ross conducted but has no references to back up the nature of these engagements -- he could have just been taking masterclasses/lessons or conducting local amateur groups. His publications don't qualify him for notability under WP:PROFTEST. Couldn't find out anything about the conducting competition via Google -- only hits were pages promoting Ross. Grover cleveland 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary - I did so, so delete the article. --Celestianpower háblame 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scundered[edit]

Northen Ireland slang. Very small websearch results Dangherous 12:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 05:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 11:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tank commander[edit]

unuseful stub, prod tag was removed as well as wikictionary tag Melaen 12:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. A close one, but consensus seems to be that this is not notable enough for a standalone article. However, it was a close call between deletion and relisting (or closing as no consensus), so the poor article quality swung it. I have no objections to recreation at any time if a better article explaining why this branch is notable is written. kingboyk 11:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Queensland Branch Pauline Hanson's One Nation New South Wales Division[edit]

POV fork. In itself this organisation is not notable. Delete and redirect to Pauline Hanson's One Nation RicDod 13:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article states: "Was formed in Ipswich Queensland on the 11th of April 2005. The branch was the second in a growing list of New South Wales division branches to form in Queensland. The first Queensland branch of New South wales division of P.H.O.N was Darling Downs/Locyer Branch which was formed in January of the same year."
The AEC registered a Qld One Nation Branch on 22 April. In June the AEC refused to change the name of the NSW Branch of Pauline Hanson's One Nation - the objection to the name change coming from the WA Branch of One Nation. In Qld therefore we have branches of Pauline Hanson's One Nation and One Nation - the former party being only registered in NSW but having branches in Qld.--A Y Arktos\talk 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I am not sure that wishful thinking that something is dead or dying is a reason for deletion. I can find no evidence of a web based copyvio, although I agree it may have been copied. However,it doesn't appear quite fluent enough for any publication, even a pamphlet with dot points that have been compressed. Salvaging might take some work and one would have to muster up the enthusiasm and the Reliable sources.--A Y Arktos\talk 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't my reason for voting delete. My stance is that a branch or division of PHON does not warrant its own article - not even the major parties have separate articles for state divisions. Ultimately, however, I can see nothing in the article that is worthy of publication.--cj | talk 05:11, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danys[edit]

Meaningless pseudo-religious nonsense, unsourced or verified.--Zxcvbnm 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Glaswegian Postman[edit]

Another made up phrase. Zero hits on Google. Zero hits on MSN Search. A single hit on Yahoo Search that is referring to something else. OR. Delete AlistairMcMillan 14:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 11:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badock Hall[edit]

It's a dorm. There are no sources, and no indication of significance. It's already mentioned in University_of_Bristol, which I think is an appropriate level of detail. Thus, I suggest deletion rather than merging, since the relevant info already exists elsewhere. Friday (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We're not trying to replace housing brochures. Each blade of grass in my yard is different too, but there's nothing encyclopedic to be said about them individually. Wikipedia is not a phone book, so just because something has an address doesn't automatically get it included. If you want to know what happens when dorm articles get expanded, check out the mess at Odell Residence Hall, Lewis & Clark College. Friday (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would generally tend to agree. The main reason this is on Afd is the redirect I did previously was already reverted. This doesn't seem to be getting a lot of attention from experienced editors, so I thought Afd might help. Also, I'm hoping to propagate the general opinion that simply being a building isn't enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, among people who participate in Afd. Friday (talk) 14:09, 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, with a recommendation to use PROD for these sort of nominations in the future. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravestar[edit]

Either delete or redirect to rave culture. Dangherous 22:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. While it may have copyright issues, those are not settled here, where the consensus is clearly keep. Turnstep 13:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management[edit]

pure advertisement text (reads like a brochure MaxE 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The personal, almost family-like atmosphere at the School is characterised by the fascination and commitment of everyone involved." this is not wiki MaxE 14:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantified Marketing Group[edit]

Advert for a company Edward 14:37, 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. This does seem more of a content dispute than anything else, but the fact that this it is a name used at least somewhat commonly in India rules out a complete delete. Of interest is the fact that the word "Gurunath" does not even appear on the Shri Gurudev Mahendranath page, which certainly does not help the argument that the Gurunath article should be about the word coinage claim. The page will be kept, but primarily to mention the use as an Indian name. The other section should be removed, or put at the bottom of the page *after* it is at least mentioned (and referenced) on the Shri Gurudev Mahendranath page. Turnstep 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gurunath[edit]

Insufficient notability with respect to content. There are between 4 and 50 google hits when you search for "shri gurudev mahendranath" and "gurunath" or "mahendranath" and "gurunath". Most of these don't even apply to the content. Whereas "Gurunath" alone gets almost 52,000 hits, since it is a common name in India. The individual who gets the most hits (1,140) for "gurunath" is "yogiraj gurunath". I suggest deleting this article and redirecting link to his article. Hamsacharya dan 14:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated redirect was speedily kept as the nomination was withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gurunath → Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath -- Gurunath is a title used by people other than the redirect subject. For example, the current leader of my lineage is Shri Gurunath Kapilnath. Adityanath 12:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Rather than deleting, edit into a description of the title. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify 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 - Turnstep 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GayCork[edit]

Non-notable website.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. No Guru 22:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess Who's Back[edit]

((prod)) removed by anon Computerjoe's talk 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. There would just barely be a consensus to redirect, counting FreplySpang's "Redirect or Delete" vote as "Redirect" since no one else voted to delete, but there is also some indication the article was cleaned up in response to one or two redirect votes. Of course, anyone is free to redirect or merge it, provided there's no consensus against that. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Religion[edit]

WP:NOR Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic flight 815 website[edit]

--I feel that it should be as it is a perfect example of synergy within the media & therefore a fantastic encyclopaedic resource. As a media studies teacher I know that synergy is taught every single year & several of my students this year have chosen Lost. I'm sure this number will increase in the future - Shaft121 19:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Baker[edit]

Vanity article consisting of text copied from non-notable subject's website and written by Russ Baker. [36] Tomstoner 15:25, 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 A7. Royboycrashfan 17:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shatnermosism[edit]

I'm speechless...... well-thought-out and entirely bogus. WP:BJAODN a must, but delete it from article space. FreplySpang (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While perhaps not the most widespread religion, still contains a group of legally ordained Ministers under the Universal Life Church. No reason to delete this article. wentwj Founder of Religion, writer of article Shatnermosism —The preceding kind of unsigned comment was added by Wentwj (talk • contribs) .

The Raptor Jesus mentioned in the religion is entirely unreleated from the raptor jesus I have just now become aware of. There are no photoshoped pictures, no mocking of the historical jesus. Simply a seperate, Raptor Jesus. --Wentwj 16:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be a supporter of Shatnermoism and feel that this article should not be persecuted against simply because its a small religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.233.21.243 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete, Afd vote was vandalized

Delia Associates[edit]

advertisement Aleph4 16:08, 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. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owen W. Linzmayer[edit]

The topic does not appear to be noteworthy or encyclopedic. While it is about a published author, the article does not establish importance and has the tone of a vanity page. Dpv 16:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was raise on RfD. —Whouk (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me[edit]

This recently created redirect page redirects to Pardon (as a legal notion) which has little to do with colloquial expression Pardon me. Alexei Kouprianov 16:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this belongs on WP:RfD rather than AfD. —Whouk (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I did not know that RFD exists. What I am to do now? Nominate it for RFD? Alexei Kouprianov 16:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes :-) Longer response on your talk page. —Whouk (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was raise on RfD. —Whouk (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me[edit]

This recently created redirect page redirects to Pardon (as a legal notion) which has little to do with colloquial expression Excuse me. Alexei Kouprianov 16:32, 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 with no prejudice towards future pages asserting both notability and verifiability. Turnstep 14:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Yraola[edit]

Person not at all notable. Possible vanity page. iKato 16:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 a copyvio. While this is a school and thus not applicable to either WP:BIO or WP:VANITY, the page is a total copy of the URL given below by User:Where. It's certainly welcome to come back in a non-copyvio, referenced, and hopefully cleaned-up format, but it currently has been a direct copy of the external website since March, with a single change made to hyperlink the name of the school back to its homepage. Turnstep 15:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Escuela de Nuestra Señora de La Salette[edit]

Delete per WP:BIO and possibly WP:VANITY. Article seems to be about a principal of a Spanish school. Only 16 unique Google results [38]--TBC??? ??? ??? 16:43, 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. Leaving aside the self-promotion angle, the site is still clearly non-notable and fails WP:WEB. A local college award and a local newspaper writeup are just not enough to redeem what is ultimately a very small forum. Turnstep 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo with sprinkles[edit]

WP:WEB Non-notable web site, as article admits. John Nagle 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For future reference, ((prod)) should not be replaced on an article once anyone removes it, per WP:PROD. Vslashg (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you want to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, and that's strongly discouraged. Web sites only get into Wikipedia after they become notable. Otherwise, every website on the web would have an article. Also, writing an article about yourself or your own stuff is generally discouraged. Have you read WP:WEB and WP:VAIN? Those will make things clearer. It's not just you; about a thousand articles a day are thrown out of Wikipedia. --John Nagle 02:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (with a recommendation to use WP:PROD in the future) — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AradorMUSH[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RivaMUSH[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emilé Wordsworth[edit]

Looks like pure vanity. 9 Google hits. Punkmorten 18:07, 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 Transwiki Kotepho 07:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tongue-twisters[edit]

This is a massive and very interesting list of tongue-twisters in numerous languages. Unfortunately, I believe this isn't suitable material for an encyclopedia, for the following reasons:

Of course, I wouldn't want such a great list to be completely deleted. Maybe Wikibooks would host it, or some other way could be found to keep it online and editable.

Rain74 18:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roodog2k 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep (but you might want to look at merging it, or do what I did with KLF Communications and have the main discography and a section on the vanity label in one article. The article as it stands is not of the best quality.) kingboyk 11:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Funk Entertainment[edit]

171 hits on Google, a Yahoo! page, and nothing else (no domain, no nothing). NN :: Colin Keigher 18:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the essence of Vanity labels. Though it has released albums for the other artists of its roster. Lajbi 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Discography with Billboard chart positions completed. Is it still non-notable??? Lajbi 20:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. The two "keep" votes also way "but turn into a list". However, this is already turned into a list: Category:Radio broadcasting companies of the United States. There are no votes to keep the actual article content, so deletion is justified on these grounds. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio broadcasting companies of the United States[edit]

This is not a list. The article text is major portions of text from existing articles. Not anywhere complete, the article is already larger then desired at 44K. Not one has offered a response to a question about keeping the article after the question was posed 3 months ago on the talk page. Vegaswikian 18:43, 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 Smerge Kotepho 07:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Amateurs of Canada Youth Education Program[edit]

NN. This could also be suggested that gets merged into Radio Amateurs of Canada instead. :: Colin Keigher 18:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to contact this user, Colin Keigher, as his own page does not have an email address to which I can direct queries;

The reason I wish to query is why he would put a deletion flag on this information. Yes it could be incorporated into the Radio Amateurs of Canada page; but the information is rather detailed, and many Wikipedia users might not know to go to Radio Amateurs of Canada; nor that the youth education program is hosted by RAC; while I assume that 'youth education' is a searchable phrase.

I'd like to see the deletion flag removed. This is a legitimate page, and has been sanctioned by the Chair of Youth Education, who asked that it be included in Winipedia.

Terrance Berscheid

Assistant Director, Youth Education BC/Yukon, Radio Amateurs of Canada ve7tbc@rac.ca

The material on Youth Education does indeed reflect what is at the RAC website; this is as RAC wishes the information be displayed. I don't see anything within the policies and guidelines which prohibit 'promotion' -- and that term would only loosely apply here, as the information is informative about how to become involved in a social program for the common good. And it definitely is not an ad. VE7TBC

Keep Intact: This obviously is no "ad", at least not in any commercial sense. Surely enthusiasm in a description is not cause for deletion. This is a summary of an obviously excellent program (YEP) aimed at youth. There is no fee levied. Radio Amateurs of Canada is a not-for-profit organization representing the interests of federally licenced Radio Amateurs across Canada. That means promoting what is not only a hobby but a valuable service. Witness the fact that RAC sponsors the Amateur Radio Emergency Service which offers trained and equipped volunteers, all at their own expense, in times of emergency, such as floods, hurricanes, forest fires, ice storms and tornadoes, to name a few. Not only does the RAC YEP encourage an understanding and appreciation for this hobby/service, but it offers a fun way of learning many educational basics, including mathematics, physics and geography. This article should definitely not be deleted. No valid argument has been made for such a drastic action. --ve3bdb 0321Z 19Apr06

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meli and Casper[edit]

Non notable. -- Szvest 19:25, 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 uncontested delete. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion Squadron[edit]

This page is apparently fiction, and/or has no indication of the importance of the subject. IceCreamAntisocial 19:24, 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: Speedily deleted as vanity. - Mike Rosoft 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LitoJ[edit]

non notable member of online forums zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Pepsidrinka. — TKD::Talk 23:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simiamese Twins (disambiguation)[edit]

Accidentally mistyped Siamese when moving Siamese twin - sYndicate talk 19:36, 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 Kotepho 07:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Tim Whatley[edit]

Non notable minor character, not article material--Zxcvbnm 19:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was uncontested delete — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxrock[edit]

Vanity page, WP:VAIN, WP:WEB. --rehpotsirhc 19:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farmers ditty[edit]

Non notable, no context or references.--Zxcvbnm 19:59, 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 — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece Attacks[edit]

Listcruft/indiscriminate collection of information. -Obli (Talk)? 20:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It's actually from a TV show, not a game, though I've never seen the show so I can't tell you how accurate it is. It's basically the equivalent of List of Dragon Ball special abilities, except about the One Piece franchise instead of the Dragonball franchise, and without the descriptions and pictures. I don't have anything to do with the article but I think it at least deserves a discussion before being deleted, since the Dragonball Attacks article sets precedent. 4.226.111.130 21:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death E.P.[edit]

No references, citations, google hits low, no proof of existence, terribly written, VERY likely false article created as a joke. Ryouga 20:34, 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 delete. No Guru 15:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old librarians[edit]

Presentation on how to use Wikipedia aimed at "old librarians". Delete as per Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --Allen3 talk 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We do have this info in a proper context - it's called the "Help" page. I'm sure an "old librarian" would find that more easily than this entry. I'm with you, Lockley: Delete. Fluit 00:25, 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. Shanel § 23:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die lois die[edit]

Delete Non-existant website that "will be up in December 2007". Despite not existing it is "a exreamly popular website" (sic). Non-notable, non-verifiable. Prod was removed by original editor without comment. Gwernol 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would have speedied it, but it doesn't meet any of the CSDs. The only one it might is A7, but that is explicitly for "article[s] about a real person, group of people, band, or club" so a website doesn't count. That's why I prod'ed it to start with. Sigh. Maybe we need a CSD for failing WP:CORP? Gwernol 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy categories for failing WP:WEB and WP:CORP would be really handy sometimes. We've already got a speedy category for articles about bands and musicians that don't assert notability, so equivalents for web pages and corporations. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:33, 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. No Guru 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Street Fighter Special Attacks/Techniques[edit]

A list of attack techniques from a video game. Video-game-cruft. Calton | Talk 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Note that this article is in the subspace of a list, not even article space itself. Teke 04:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that's because the author tried to use a forward slash (/) in the title, without realizing it would be created as a subpage. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 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 by clear consensus of actual editors involved. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of special techniques in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo[edit]

More fancruft that belongs in GameFAQs. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, not a how-to guide, etc. Calton | Talk 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ??? I'm not sure how something about a television show belongs in GameFAQs. See Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo. Kotepho 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I was nominating a bunch of similiar articles and I got confused/careless. --Calton | Talk 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this different than any of the other special technique lists on Wikipedia? Nothing, really -- and they should all go into the bit bucket as fancruft, minutiae that is not of the slightest interest to anyone outside the circle of fans of those specific shows (and perhaps not even then). Point me to those lists and I'll nominate them for AfD in a hot second. --Calton | Talk 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Hint: what does the word "pop" in "pop culture" mean? --Calton | Talk 02:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More a matter of exclusion. Trivia about massively notable fictional subjects is at best debatable; trivia about minor fictional subjects is unequivocal (for me anyway). Just zis Guy you know? 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Both the anon IPs with few/no edits before this vote were discarded, but they cancelled each other out anyway. Turnstep 15:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kamehameha (Dragon Ball)[edit]

Possibly the ultimate in fancruft: a detailed article about a single attack in an anime. Of no interest I can imagine outside of the show itself.) Calton | Talk 21:00, 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 as non-notable. Turnstep 15:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 4[edit]

non-notable music group zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you consider this page for deletion!! This page will go down in history as the start of things to come, how dare you doubt the Unit 4 mandem. We will show you all!!!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 21:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Consulting[edit]

Advertising Knucmo2 21:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can re-write into historical, factual 3rd person format. Although many of the companies listed in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_consulting

Follow similar form. My intent was not to do a drive by post, but, maintain a real descriptive entry for the company.

I'll do a re-write tonight. Hopefully that will keep it out of the bitbucket. --Oceanconsulting

I'm not sure about Alexa, but, Ocean Consulting ranks #1 when searching for terms such as 'UNIX technology consulting' and 'Linux technology consulting' on Google.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=UNIX+technology+consulting&btnG=Google+Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Linux+technology+consulting&btnG=Google+Search

--Oceanconsulting 22:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Ocean Consulting information technology wiki site added to page. Oceanconsulting 22:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although we are based in the Portland metro area, we are an I.T. consulting and services company with customer's worldwide. Oceanconsulting 00:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added historical fact of note. Ocean Consulting posted the first kitecam site on the web. Oceanconsulting 00:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added information of some other companies also called Ocean Consulting. User:n/a 20:00, 25 April 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Danza sex move[edit]

Delete unverifiable sexual-stunt-cruft. Author removed prod tag. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:11, 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 stubbed down by author but now redirected to Graduation. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graduation with Civic Honors[edit]

Vanity/personal essay. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Court Jester 21:15, 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, which is sad, because I always found Pikachu's speech to be cute. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Pokémon[edit]

Pokecruft, there are only a few "Talking Pokemon" and that can be discussed at their main articles, there doesn't have to be a separate page explaining them as such.--Zxcvbnm 21:34, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilburn hall/

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 23:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy in america[edit]

This is someone trying to promote his opinion. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. SCHZMO ✍ 21:59, 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

"end result"[edit]

This is utter nonsense. WP:PN Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thelocale.org[edit]

nn forum, does not meet WP:WEB, reads like advertisement. A (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22thelocale.org%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) google search shows something like 350 hits. (note I didn't link it properly because google searches with my client seem to break external links, sorry). ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 23:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Nice Guy (2006 eBook)[edit]

This page has had a speedy delete and PROD removed. I'm listing it in the belief that it is primarily an advertisement for a non-notable eBook (created by the author of the eBook). Wikipedia:Deletion policy suggests listing an article at AfD if it is a Vanity page or it is "Advertising or other spam": I consider this article subject to both of these descriptions. Politepunk 22:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. - Politepunk 22:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masculine humor[edit]

Original research. Rejected from PROD, so here we are on AFD -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 14:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouble with Monorails[edit]

The article is essentially an unverified OR essay arguing against monorails and seems to be constructed entirely out of Weasel Words. --rehpotsirhc 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - I only translated it with an aim of placing the rebuttal in the discussion. I personally disagree with every single word, and wonder why our French friends keep it still. The argument is internally sound enough, but the phrasing is contentious. I only translated it, the objectionable, rather smug language, is not mine. Gordon Vigurs 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete Thryduulf 11:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retcon punch[edit]

Not notable enough for an entry. Minor speculative fan terminology. Only one of a multitude of offhand phrases used to describe something that has yet to be named officially, if it ever will be. Could be considered fancruft. - Chris Griswold 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's discussion page, under the heading "delete":

Comment On top of being a neologism, the term appears to be restricted to the comic fandom in general. I don't see any chance of a larger appeal to a general audience, such as with the term Fonzie Syndrome. It's hard to apply "retcon punch" to other types of media.--DoctorWorm7 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Maybe allow some time to establish notability? I'm tempted to just call it a Neologism and say delete, but it does seem to be in widespread use in the fandom, and different users have started to reference it in other articles. So it could be argued there's a desire for an article. Really should've waited longer before starting an article though.Furthestshore 14:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is influencing the usage, not chronicling it. It's part of a weird fan campaign. --Chris Griswold 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it just be merged with Superboy-Prime? Since it's a facet of his powers? --Chris Griswold 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think you should keep it because it is a useful article and DC hasn't given us an official term for this important thing yet so it makes sense to use the term the fans are using. I dont use wiki often and I used it for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.77.146.184 (talk • contribs) .

Citation? --Chris Griswold 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look at the article Sliding_timescale. Like this it talks about something that clearly exists in comic books, even if it's not an "official" word. This is something that [i]is[/i] important enough to get an article and the article has to go somewhere. A title widely used by fans is the best choice until there's an official word. Did Superboy Prime change coninuity? Yes, verifiably. Do fans make jokes about how far it could go? Yes, not [i]as[/i] verifiable, but there's such a thing as common sense. Is there an official word yet? No, so, within reason, any title for the article would be acceptable, but a word the fans use would be best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.143.243.114 (talk • contribs) . (unsign added by JoshuaZ 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. kingboyk 05:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Biblical figures[edit]

Delete. List is short, incomplete, and will never be complete or useful. All five entrants are profoundly nn and some have lost AfD's. The Bible has tens of thousands of characters and this list will never capture all of them. Prod remover's well-stated rationale is on the article's talk page. See also, this recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adina (Biblical name). - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SciFI Wiki[edit]

Wikis are good in general but this one fails the WP:WEB notability guidelines. Sorry....Scott5114 23:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Matthew Fenton (t) 11:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn website. Rain74 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Morelli[edit]

Despite its relative length, this is clearly a vanity article about an obscure individual. Please note that his main claim to fame is a short student film. The rest of the information, such as about his political activism or interest in learning Moroccan Arabic, is utterly irrelevant and unnoteworthy. There were also inappropriate mentions of this individual in other articles, such as a bizarre in suggestion in Cuckold that unfaithful women shout "Jam! All! More!" while having sex with their husbands as a way to evoke Jamal Morelli, the real object of their desire; another example is this mention under Fes: "the Ville Nouvelle is a bustling commercial center with a popular American Language Center and filmmaker Jamal Morelli's studio." Finally, every result on Google seems to be either a Wikipedia article on which his name (inappropriately) appears, or from sites such as answers.com that reflect Wikipedia's content.Wfgiuliano 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - and please stop deleting everything on Jamal Morelli which I and others have created. I tried to get rid of horrible things like the JAM ALL MORE; people have tried and then it is put back on. Jamal Morelli deserves to be included as a man of note for his contributions to art, peace, Moroccan/American exchanges. The assessment of his life work is strange. Interest in Moroccan Arabic? He brought it to the racist South during a time people were being arrested for that. Jamal Morelli is known as the first male Muslim artist to work with 20,000 people strong Fellowship of Isis. He worked with recording star Myshkin. And "Secrets of the Sisterhood" was not a student film. I feel hurt that so much work is just scrapped in an instant.

And as far as an interest in Moroccan Arabic being in some way subversive or novel in the late 20c! my whole (American) family took courses in it in 1963‑65.... Bill 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete: Who said it was subversive? Where does it say he was interested in it? Jamal Morelli was the first to bring Moroccan Arabic to New Orleans - this is, and was, a great achievement. Why is Nadia's work (and ours) being completely wiped out by Wfgiuliano? Our artists are not represented at all. And Bill, at the ALC in Fes, they still use the only Dictionary of Moroccan Arabic from Georgetown University - 1960-1965! We are excited at someone taking our culture abroad at a time of incredible hate between cultures. I am sorry the cafe is not letting me to log in. But I will try somewhere else. Please, be considerate of the fact we have to pay to contribute each time. Thank you for patience and forgive errors, Khalid Idrissi.


Oh, boy! This started as a simple good deed: getting a particularly obnoxious vanity page deleted from our beloved Wikipedia. Now it has turned into a crazy (albeit somewhat amusing) cultural battle.

>Interest in Moroccan Arabic? He brought it to the racist South during a time people were being >arrested for that.

That is such sheer lunacy that it's actually funny! It's really one of the most preposterous statements I have ever read. I wonder if Mr. Morelli has been telling his Moroccan friends that he risked his liberty, life, and limb in order to heroically bring the forbidden language, Moroccan Arabic, to the benighted American South? I think Jamal Morelli must really be a character, if not he surely suffers from paranoid delusions.

>We are not equipped here in Morocco with endless amounts of time in cybercafes (no, we don't have
>as many computers at our homes as you do)
>Please, be considerate of the fact we have to pay to contribute each time.

Uh, no, we won't be considerate of that, or at least we shouldn't. Such statements are logical fallacies (appeals to pity). What everyone should do instead is to consider your arguments on their intrinsic merit, or lack thereof.Wfgiuliano 05:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we will not be able to compete with you, mister wfgiuliano. you are quite violent. and if the most preposterous statement you have ever read is that during the years of 2002 on people were be arrested for arabic sympathies, with respect to you, sir, read more.

For the information of the anonymous individual: the current American governmment, for which I have little sympathy, is actually promoting the study of Arabic in this country in order to have Americans who can help them wage further wars of aggression. Therefore, "bringing Moroccan Arabic" to the US could not possibly land anyone in sunny Guantánamo since it coincides with government policy. And since you seem to have a very poor understanding of the US, let me explain something else to you: the reason why courses in Moroccan Arabic are rare in the US is not because teaching it is unlawful or frowned upon; it is simply because too few people are interested in it. The many Americans currently learning Arabic are usually sensible enough to study modern standard Arabic rather than dialectal forms of the language, which would make about as much sense as someone from China learning Gullah or Hiberno-English. Wfgiuliano 17:00, 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. Redundant with extant category, this article is of little use to the encyclopedia. There is an apparent consensus among established users to delete this. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 17:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of independent record labels[edit]

A large list, which has also had some maintenance issues (see the article's Talk page). Categories are better for record labels than lists. Delete. kingboyk 23:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

  • Comment - because that one's up for deletion, too, and rightly so. What's wrong with Category:Independent record labels? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may answer the suggestion "how about you do something sensible", I thought I already did. I've put work into the record label categories and nominated this frightful list for deletion. That's two Blue Peter badges for me don't you think? :) --kingboyk 01:25, 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 merge and redirect Turnstep 17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nelvaanians[edit]

A stub about a minor race from Star Wars spin-off, information already in List of Star Wars races Eivindt@c 23:36, 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. — Apr. 26, '06 [07:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>

NNDB[edit]

Was given ((prod)), removed with odd edit summary so brought here instead.
NNDB does not appear to satisfy the guideline for inclusion of websites. Google news only shows a single line in a single "net guide" column in the Edmonton Sun. While a Google search does return 24,600 hits, there are only 150 unique. Even with this dearth of hits, almost none of these are about the NNDB, but are all of the order of "See Britney/Cher/Hawking/brenneman at the Notable Names Database." This page is heavily linked thanks to having its own template but as there is no independant verification possible it should be deleted.
brenneman{L} 23:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some back-and-forth on this nomination of mine. Please don't edit other people's signed comments, rebut them in your own space. - brenneman{L} 07:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry about the protocol breach. I was not sure what the right thing to do was. I will merely note that the statement of "150 unique" is false, and to see the fourth bullet point below. Quatloo 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other details:

Someone asked for a citation. A proper citation is not specifically necessary here because this is not an article. However, I will humor you, so I did this: [43] (Yahoo) and [44] (DMOZ), plus [45] and [46] (the top 100 results for Google searches of Biography or Biographies, extracting anything that purported to be a site devoted to general biography). All I correlated with [47], Alexa. That dragnet, simple as it is, would certainly have unearthed any site that met the criteria. Nothing came close.


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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 11:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of photographs[edit]

Given "Category:Memorable Photographs" it becomes irrelevant. Lkjhgfdsa 23:48, 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. Shanel § 23:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities playing radio show callers on Frasier[edit]

Unecncylopedic listcruft. Furthermore, it's not verifiable except by some fan-site, because the "official" link leads to a "404 not found". Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 23:50, 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 Redirect to List of dragons. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dragon species[edit]

Even author admits that dragons are not real, but goes on to list types of species that are "known." If species names belong to a game, book, or movie, etc., they should be moved to the page appropriate to the source. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 23:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bramald[edit]

Speedy tag removed. Non notable 16-year old in UK. Vanity Montco 23:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following votes are duplicate votes by Thommo44, which were substituted for deletion of all entries from nomination through Danny Litithborne's vote:
  • Keep! This person is notable and worthy of this article been kept, delete some other peoples like David Beckhams! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thommo44 (talk • contribs) at 22:46, April 18, 2006
    • KEEP We all loves Charles!!! he is a hero in Yorkshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thommo44 (talk • contribs) at 22:48, April 18, 2006


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