< July 23 July 25 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge and redirect. Mailer Diablo 16:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Donoghue[edit]

This article appears to be non-notable, and vanity. I would recommend merging it with the Cyberkinetics article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-Notable vanity. --Cheesehead 1980 13:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect to Midnight Rx. --Ezeu 06:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium dibromide[edit]

I am the creator of this page and I am uncertain whether this page belongs on Wikipedia, whether it deserves a merge, or deletion. I have created this deletion page so that other Wikipedians could evaluate this page. --GoOdCoNtEnT 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology, I seemed to have not read your message, so lets go with Merge per above —Minun Spiderman 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree[edit]

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 06:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City Wiki[edit]

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. The only link besides the website itself is a forum post [1] and not only does that fail all wikipedia requirements, I think it's not even allowed to be linked (please note I have not removed this link). FurryiamIAM 06:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Watches[edit]

Non-notable company as per WP:Corp as noted by computerjoe in his 20-July prod that was inappropriately removed by article author. Valrith 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest first week sales[edit]

It's unclear as to what the article is actually about, due partly to a bad choice in name; and only rap artists have been taken into account for the article anyway; which doesn't list its sources, if any. JD[don't talk|email] 00:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Morality and the Law[edit]

We have articles about books. But articles about chapters of books are inheritently not-notable (unless the book is a Koran or Bible or something like this) abakharev 00:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To hide relevant information from the public is simply dishonest (no matter if it's right-wing or left-wing) and disqualifies the intentions of those who oppose the content of the text. One may not agree with Foucault, but at least one should agree that it is the right of other people to know what he said. My impression is that some people are desperatly seeking any motive to hide a piece of relevant human knowledge from others. I live in a country where a whole generation of intellectuals fighted against censorship during military dictatorship for over 20 years, so I know how it looks like. Paulo Andrade 23:45 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
It probly isn't anything so malicious - english speakers in general are typically fairly unaware of Foucault's importance. In this discussion Foucault is called less important than Nietzsche, or Hegel - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - his philosophy is referred to as an indiscriminate collection of information - anglos just don't know much about him because he isn't as accessible as Hume WilyD 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it isn't really the place, but you cannot be seriously suggesting that Foucault even enters the same order of significance as Hegel, can you? Vizjim 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, realistically he probly lies somewhere between Hegel and Nietzsche ... but he's not been buried long enough to accrete the amount of influence that either of them have - importance is a different issue. WilyD 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm, Yes, Paulo Andrade... I voted delete or move to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 "to hide a piece of relevant human knowledge from others". How did you ever figure out my sinister master plan? Mwa-ha-ha! (end sarcasm)... Seriously though... read WP:AGF Paulo before making wild unfounded accusations.--Isotope23 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Limit the content? What purpose does that serve other than attempting to ensure some sort of notability to information ratio that cannot be attained, and is in itself a value judgment? I say the most we should trim down is to the 30kb limit. AdamBiswanger1 13:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because its encyclopedia, and after all it is just a radio talk rather than a large body of work. An overview, with links to the full text and related texts ought to be sufficient for researchers. But anyway that's a discussion for another day, on the article's talk page. Herostratus 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Fangames HQ[edit]

Non-notable site about fan-made games for Sonic the Hedgehog. I prod'ded this but it was removed. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Ssbfalcon 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Ssbfalcon 05:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kylexyinfo[edit]

Fails WP:WEB This is a fan site, not the official website for the show. No alexa rating at all. Just not notable. My vote would be Delete. Dipics 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. I almost put it up for speedy delete when I first saw it. --KPWM_Spotter 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interspecies erotica[edit]

Dicdef, nn-neologism abakharev 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4 as Suisky. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suisk[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 was speedy delete as simple, pretty much word-for-word, re-creation of previously deleted content (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That's So Raven: The Movie). Please make use of ((db-repost)) for this sort of thing, rather than creating a whole new AFD nomination. Uncle G 17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's So Raven: The Movie[edit]

This was nominated for deletion before, but someone has recreated the page. It all seems to be fancruft or speculation; as was said in the first discussion, there is no evidence to suggest a That's So Raven movie being produced in the near future. LBM 00:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was to keep, and it's not comfy. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klippan (sofa)[edit]

Non-notable IKEA product. Spam-like. Fireplace 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I didn't consider one article (discounting the passing references in the other sources) to be 'multiple non-trival published works', so as far as I was concerned it was failing WP:CORP. However a little digging brings up a few articles specifically about the Klippan, and since the original research has been removed I have to change to a 'Keep'. Yomangani 09:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC MD[edit]

Advertisement and self promotion. Tagged with "prod" on 5/22/06; tag removed by IP user in the same region (Chicago) as the business is located. Diogenes00 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding hamster[edit]

By its own admission, this topic is obscure. Simply put: no way is "an obscure in-joke in the early years of [a] Finnish computer magazine" notable. Not in the least. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (The only reason this article exists is for silly parallelism with exploding whale and exploding toad.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cmon now...an exploding hamster? Get that outta here...Reppin the bay 01:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS That is a joke. Vizjim 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Obvious. Naconkantari 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IGN_users[edit]

Do we really need this page? Seems like nonsense to me ScotchMB 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(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 was delete. DS 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

schoolhandbook.blogspot.com[edit]

Removed without comment. a non-notable blog that fails WP:WEB Lorty 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrustedID[edit]

fails WP:CORP ranks almost 3 million on Alexa; spam links to this company have been placed in other articles. Rklawton 01:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deletion. However, does everyone realize that the O.J. Simpson carchase was eleven years ago? RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1990s retro movement[edit]

The retro movement described in the article appears to be purely speculative. Unlike other retro movements, this one is not widely considered to have occurred. Also, the references to events in the future are bizarre. Originalbigj 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many bands from the 1990s such as Green Day and Smashing Pumpkins continue to record music in the 2000s.
Sonic the Hedgehog is remade for modern game consoles.
Bands and video game franchises can last more than one decade? I never knew that, my mind has been blown! (faints) Nate 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How on earth can you pinpoint "1987 retro"??? Are you being serious? Cultural things aren't THAT well defined that we can say "oh, that's 1973 retro" or "That's 1981 retro!". --Rehcsif 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - besides, you admit yourself that we're talking about "if one evolves". It hasn't yet, so there's no need to write about it until it has. When it does, then it's a useful topic. BigHaz 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up To The Ground[edit]

Again, WP:NOT a Crytal Ball. --Shane (talk/contrib) 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wouldn't go by IMDB. They have a really bad record on movies "in development" that never happen. Wait at least for cameras to roll. Fan-1967 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was lies. DS 14:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desinterism[edit]

Per the article, "Term desinterism was used for the first time in USSR in 1964". Only problem is, with zero GHits, it doesn't seem to have been used by anyone, at any time. Looks like Original Research and Neologism. I also can't find any references to "Golden paprika" that don't refer to a color or a spice, so total hoax is possible. Author has no other edits. -- Fan-1967 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, grave robbing would be "disinterism", although I believe the usual term is disinterment. This one just doesn't seem to mean anything. (I even tried possible Spanish variants like Desinterismo or Desinterisma because of the Latin American references in the article. No hits.) Fan-1967 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right! I missed the "de" for "di." Des-inter? De-sinter? Whatever it is, it isn't. Geogre 14:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bermuda Triangle incidents[edit]

This is neither a list of incidents nor even a list of links to them. It's mostly a collection of links to various dates and various types of craft. Crabapplecove 02:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of German exonyms for places in Latvia[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a thesaurus, much less a language translator. Crabapplecove 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - please share with us, then, to what extremely useful use you would put this list? BlueValour 03:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 1ne 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Four, issue number 1 cover spoofs[edit]

It's a terrible article anyway, but the whole idea seems based on opinion and Original Research. What constitutes a "spoof" is often largely subjective. (What If #36, for example, is most definitely not a spoof, because there's nothing humorous or satirical about it.) Crabapplecove 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are we allowed to link to WP:NOT and say that "WP is not.." whatever we feel like, even when it's not explicitly listed on that page? Can I say that WP is not a tuna fish sandwich submerged in a bathtub full of mineral spirits? -- Plutor 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My apologies for misguided humor, I knew which one I was thinking of when I commented. The correct justification for my comment is WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, with the caveat that this is not an exhaustive list per "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not" -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was also a poorly composed joke. I knew which explicit rule you were referring to. Apologies all around! -- Plutor 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Meteos planets[edit]

It either needs to be completely redone or, IMHO, deleted. It's nonstop opinion throughout {"very strange", "it's great", "sounds like", etc.) and reads very much like it's been cut and pasted from somewhere else. The statistics almost certainly were, and are therefore a copyright violation. Crabapplecove 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Wikibooks. I did contribute to this article, but let's be honest- it's more appropriate for a strategy guide than an encyclopedia, and a strategy guide is what Wikipedia is not. --Sonicrazy 02:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credit freeze[edit]

The intent of this article is to draw attention to one company, also nominated for deletion. All but one of the external links are to pages about or written by one of TrustedID's founders. Finally, this article was created on 2006-07-22 by User:Citim who also created the TrustedID article. Citim has made no contributions to WP other than creating these two entries and editing Suze Orman to add another link to TrustedID. Both articles are VSCA and should be deleted. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byrd Alzheimer's Center & Research Institute[edit]

This sounds like it was lifted from a website. First person viewpoint, some POV... TrackerTV 02:38, 24 July 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus Twelve[edit]

Delete non-notable, unverifiable and likely original research. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Price is Right (1976 Music Package)[edit]

If this isn't cruft I don't know what it. It is useless, unencylopedic and something nobody is likely to search for - and those are the reasons that are on the talk page@ Buckner 1986 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedias by size[edit]

Without actually providing the sizes for the reader, this is unproven Original Research. It's also just plain goofy. Crabapplecove 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That would be a frightening list indeed (especially if it included pictures) -- Librarianofages 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's what I read first time too, and I thought, Unverifiable! KillerChihuahua?!? 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as probably a redundant article MLA 09:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per Piotrus on the assumption that cross-namespace redirects are appropriate. MLA 10:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Wikipedias by language fulfills that purpose. GassyGuy 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulric Nisbet[edit]

The page does not assert the notability of its subject and has no citations. It has only 496 google hits. It seems to be a non-notable author who wrote a few books during his life time. Cowman109Talk 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently 23 google hits for for the term "Ulric Nisbet" (taking out wikipedia hits)[5], and 16 hits for "Nisbet, Ulric"[6]. Bwithh 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to allow clear consensus to develop. - brenneman {L} 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually its just 35 hits if you use quotation marks[7]. (not that 500 is impressive) Bwithh 04:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENTGoogle hits mean 0, what are you talking about? -- Librarianofages 05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need to shout. Google hits aren't the be-all and end-all, but they do mean something to different degrees depending on topic. It can especially useful when you're using Google Scholar and Google Books too. Bwithh 05:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haskell House seems to be a small specialist publisher dedicated to reprints of "scarce scholarly books".[18]. Now known as MSG-Haskell House[19]. Can't find website for the company Bwithh 10:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shitfit U.S.[edit]

Non-notable bandcruft, vanity, and a great deal of patent nonsense. Crabapplecove 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Patent nonsense and non-notable group/biography articles can be speedy deleted, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was DELETE. Rje 14:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesneco Torch, The[edit]

Non notable publication. No Google hits. There seems to be some little notability assertions (organizing 1st Organizational Assembly, 1st Torch Cup Debate, etc), enough to prevent a CSD:A7, but not for AFD. ReyBrujo 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Airs[edit]

Delete – Non-notable individual or, at best, very minor notability. (Not even a particularly well-known name in the sex-positive movement.) Article reads like a vanity piece. Only 620 unique Google hits when Wikipedia is excluded. Iamcuriousblue 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When chcking on the notability of Kim Airs and Grand Openings, I came across this mention that Grand Opening had been bought out be Good Vibrations. That probably mentions some mention in the GV article. I'll add it soon. Iamcuriousblue 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what happened with that, though, as the new Good Vibes isn't in the same space where Grand Opening was (unless Grand Opening moved at some point), and they're not using the Grand Opening name at all, so be careful if you mention that (and don't believe anything the Herald says :P) Catamorphism 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I only do speedy deletion tags when its really really obvious that an article is patent nonsense, obvious vandalism, or something along those lines. If there are doubts about notability, I prefer to run it through an AfD to make sure there's consensus about the lack of notbility. Speedy deletion is a bit unilateral, usually the opinion of one tagger and one administrator, and I've seen perfectly good articles thrown out because two people happen to make the wrong call. Iamcuriousblue 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion might have worked here, though? Catamorphism 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a new one to me. Iamcuriousblue 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Better to be safe than sorry, right? --Tuspm(C | @) 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At best, those programs make a case for the notability of the "You Ought to be in Pictures" event, but I really doubt even that's particularly notable. (Hard one to Google test considering since there's an old movie and popular song of the same name.) I haven't seen any of the two cable TV programs in question, but it sounds to me like these were just brief parts of a larger TV episode. Iamcuriousblue 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you click through the links on the Grand Opening site, you quickly end up on www.sextoysex.com. If you go to the front page of Sextoysex.com, you'll see that its an online business with an affiliate program. If you go to their generic "Lesbian Front page", you'll see that the Grand Opening site is just that site plus the Grand Opening banner. If you click through the copyright information on the bottom of the Sextoysex.com home page for ownership information, you'd find that its run by a Dave Levine, through his company Convergence Inc. It goes without saying that none of this makes a case for Kim Airs notability; quite the opposite, in fact. Iamcuriousblue 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abune Yosef[edit]

The population estimates released by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia has no listing for any settlement with this name in the country. However, there is mountain by that name, one of the 10 or 20 tallest in Ethiopia, located in the northern Amhara Region. Lastly, according to my map Mt. Abuna Yosef is 390 km north of Addis Ababa, not 320 km. Once all of the mistakes are removed from this article, there's nothing left to salvage. This should probably be considered a speedy delete, except I can't figure out a suitable category to justify this act. llywrch 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, if I take out all of the mistakes, there won't be anything left; & is it simpler to move an empty article -- or delete it & write an entirely new one? (I'm not trying to be snide here; I would apply be bold here & just delete the article & write an entirely new one were it not that "being bold" has acquired a bad reputation recently.) -- llywrch 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, trans-wikified already. Mailer Diablo 08:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choad[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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Zamojc[edit]

Non-notable commissioner of public works for Region of Peel in Ontario JChap (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Nandesuka 16:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of international Tartan Day celebrations[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Unfortunately, that's exactly what this list is (it even says it is). The list was apparently split off from the Tartan Day article, but that might not have been the right thing to do. Suggesting deletion: yes, it's a notable holiday, but the main article has enough information already. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I created the article as a way of getting the links out of the main article. I should have just deleted them at the time. Sorry. --Guinnog 14:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter baxter, slamdance[edit]

Non-notable. Naconkantari 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Call it Magic[edit]

Supposedly an upcoming Fox reality series. No relevant search results except Wiki and mirrors. Author (MCcoupe7 (talk · contribs)) also created a bunch of articles on upcoming Disney series which have been Prodded, but this one already was Prodded, so it needs AFD. I've never heard of a "planned" series with 30 episodes in the can, and no press. Likely hoax. At the very least unverifiable. Fan-1967 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harpies in market-driven culture[edit]

Article was created by a user who was clearing out a trivia section from Harpy and didn't write the material. He has no attachment to the article and considers it "drivel" as he indicated upon discussing the prod which was removed by a different user. As I stated in the prod, article appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information, and a synthesis of data that results in original Research.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's where the material originally resided. It was removed from there as inappropriate by the article creator (see Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations for handling Trivia and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles--Fuhghettaboutit 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imyst, Inc., Imyst, Imyst mystery shopping[edit]

Appears to fail WP:CORP. ghits: [24]. Alexa for site 904,210. — NMChico24 04:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IFSZ[edit]

Article has been around for a while and has not conformed to WP:WEB

Reasons for failing WP:WEB
1. No other sources other than information from IFSZ(No News Articles, Other Web Sites, ect)
2. No Inpedenant award given.
3. Has not been distributed via a site that is both well known and independent of the creators Aeon Insane Ward 04:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know this site as well (I have been a member since 2003) and the Article Totally fails WP:WEB, it is Nothing against the IFSZ but has to do with Notability. Aeon Insane Ward 02:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Grutness. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K-rock 1998 dj scratch[edit]

Sounds like a first-person view. I messed up the formatting, but this is NN and speedy! TrackerTV 04:37, 24 July 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 was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walled garden (wiki)[edit]

self-referential, move to meta

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Joseph[edit]

WP:BIO, WP:NN chef ... I am AfDing this at the suggestion of another editor (See edit history for details) ... deprodded twice DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 05:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Black Mesa[edit]

This is a modification for Half Life 2 which has not been released yet, and therefore could not have achieved any sort of notability. See: Wikipedia:Notability StukaAce 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties of capitalism[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 was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ebeling[edit]

Non-notable singer. Extremly POV. I think we might have speedied it once before. -Royalguard11Talk 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is extreemly POV? Here is a single page referencing the Grammy Nomination... http://www.deanguitars.com/jon_kott.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.172.2 (talk • contribs)

and another

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/2826435/a/Para+Siempre.htm

http://cdreviewsonline.com/june2006.htm

http://news.surfwax.com/music/archives/Smashing_Pumpkins.html

ALL 43rd annual grammy nominees:

http://www.salsaweb.com/music/articles/43rd_annual_grammy_nominees.htm

Bob (Robert) Kaeding was an aka for Bob Ebeling:

http://compras.univision.com/Downtown-CDs_stcVVproductId2935930VVcatId403860VVviewprod.htm


Too much information for you to handle? What is your affiliation with Wikipedia & The GNU Free Documentation License Entities(GFDL) Royalguard11? In trying to edit a Wikipedia article, you may encounter edit warriors?

I will work on a listing much like other bio listings. Thanks for your help.

Rodney Libby (user:Rodnuts)

Please add any info you find, I am trying to get everything I can. I thought this was a team effort?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.172.2 (talk • contribs)

  • WP is a team effort, but people understandably don't want to put effort into something that they think should be deleted, which I still do because of notability concerns, not to mention that none of this is verified, which is required by a core policy. Sorry.--Chaser T 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boirpy[edit]

Speedy tag removed by anonymous user. Unsourced neologism at best, patent nonsense at worst. 0 google hits for supposed internet slang. "One who is bored and has nothing to do"? Hmmm... :-) Irongargoyle 06:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasian Actors[edit]

Short list with entries already covered in List of Blasians. Crumbsucker 06:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for same reason:

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

The result was delete, speedily, because Memory-Alpha's license prohibits commerical reuse, which is specifically allowable under the GFDL. As such, the article remaining here would constitute copyright infringement. It can't be merged ("delete and merge" is impossible even if this were GFDL text, but anyway...) due to the license issues. Dead, anyway.--SB | T 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of Kahless[edit]

This page has been lifted from Memory Alpha where it should have stayed as it's not notable in the least. Philip Stevens 06:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Resistance is futile!. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProgArchives[edit]

Unexceptional web forum, delete. --Peta 06:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulahla[edit]

I couldn't find any evidence that this is anything more than a couple of wild and crazy guys messing around in their local supermarket car park. --Spondoolicks 06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Telco[edit]

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Davidpdx 03:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galbijim Wiki[edit]

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Open Source Centre[edit]

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. When I came across this article, it already had a deletion concern notice, but not AFD. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barge of the Dead[edit]

This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 08:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. I think I can close this one early -- nom clearly didn't understand the subject's importance. Jacqui★ 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Football (band)[edit]

Delete No indication of any notability in the article, no awards etc. Appears NN Spartaz 08:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Copyright 2002 Denver Westword, LLC  
Denver Westword (Colorado)
November 21, 2002 Thursday
SECTION: Music/Columns
LENGTH: 291 words
HEADLINE: Critic's Choice
Owen
BYLINE: By Jason Heller
BODY:
Nobody likes a whiner. And yet a whole troop of emo crybabies, from Dashboard Confessional's Chris
Carraba to Bright Eyes' Connor Oberst, has whimpered its way into the spotlight over the past couple
of years. Mike Kinsella, otherwise known as Owen (appearing Tuesday, November 26, at Club 156 in
Boulder), is at least partly to blame. As drummer of the mid-'90s Illinois group Cap'n Jazz, Kinsella
helped tame the wuss-rock frontier now populated by the likes of Modest Mouse and Jimmy Eat World.
The members of Cap'n Jazz, though, were always deconstructionists at heart, using feedback, caterwauls
and solipsistic wordplay to unravel their songs almost faster than they could stitch them together.
As Cap'n Jazz mutated into Joan of Arc and then OWLS, the players softened and refined their sound,
invoking the abstract groove of Tortoise and conceptual folk-blues as much as the cathartic abandon of
Rites of Spring. Kinsella himself ventured even further into the realm of accessibility with his side
project, American Football, a stunning exhibition of intricate, elegant guitar pop. With Owen,
Kinsella has switched to guitar and vocals, boiling down American Football's melodic sensibility
to its purest essence. His self-titled debut album shimmers with wispy synth backdrops, bashful
strumming and his dandelion-puff voice, a plaintive sound stuck somewhere between Rainer Maria and an
unplugged Coldplay. Songs with titles such as "Declaration of Incompetence," with lyrics like "I can't
do anything/I can't do my hair right/Or have a good time/Or fall asleep with my girl," aren't going to
significantly distance Kinsella from the current herd of bleating emo troubadours. His finesse and
forbearance, though, already have.
LOAD-DATE: November 21, 2002

--Dan 07:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Chinese Democracy. Redirects are cheap. :) - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better (song)[edit]

Delete - article about a G'n'R song that hasn't been issued yet and may or may not be on a forthcoming album. Can be recreated when the album is issued and it is clear whether the song itself deserves an individual article Spartaz 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Clockwork Waltz[edit]

Non-notable band tribute at community theater with limited run in one small city. Wikipedia is not a theater listing. Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbt, I cited WP:NOT casually, but we actually have a formal deletion policy and music notability guidelines. At the moment there isn't a specific guideline for theater productions, but if there were, then some level of national media coverage would be part of it. The band's involvement appears to be largely passive cooperation, and while that makes it worth noting on their article, the article doesn't fit the level of notability that we've established to prevent Wikipedia from becoming, essentially, Geocities for anybody who wants an article on themselves. More on point, we wouldn't want it to fill with advertising pages, either. By asserting standards of encyclopedic value we ensure that our users can think of Wikipedia as something useful. While we can include more, much more, than a paper encyclopedia, we can't include everything. I hope you do not see this as judgement of the artistic value of the show, because it is not. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aborted[edit]

Borderline Notable as per WP:Music. Seems to have been around forever but doesn't seem to have achieved anything. The article itself is just a discography and I'm pretty sure ther eare lots of places on the web where oyu can get one of these for this Spartaz 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Menoosha Susungi[edit]

Tagged nn-bio, but notability is asserted (opened for Miriam Makeba, Kool and the Gang, Stevie Wonder). Either needs expanding and evidence of importance added, or deleting if there is no such evidence. Janitorial nomination, no vote. Just zis Guy you know? 08:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. There was a strong lobby for merge and to merge other characters in the programme as well, but I have reservations about this as the competition results have not yet been announced. Merge can anyway be addressed without AfD. This article, if not merged, may well be suitable for AfD some time in the future, when the competition fever has diminished. Tyrenius 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Koumaev[edit]

Not-notable enough. abakharev 08:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diemunkiesdie 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

FYI, I did some research and have considerably expanded the article with additional information and references. --Elonka 23:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Children at Play (Alternative rock)[edit]

Tagged nn-band but contested. No evidence of meetign WP:MUSIC - one EP and "local stardom". Entire repertoire apparently free online - not a good sign! Just zis Guy you know? 08:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Didsbury Dozen[edit]

unencyclopaedic article nob-notable pub crawl DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 08:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sons Of Nothing[edit]

tagged for deletion as non-notable band, but contested. This is a Pink Floyd tribute with some local fame, may or may not meet WP:MUSIC (no real evidence presented that they do). Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The band is apparently listed with PollStar [29] if that makes them more notable. I agree the Australian Pink Floyd is clearly more notable internationally. Sons Of Nothing is a regional phenomenon at this point. --166.70.238.250 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Light Performance[edit]

Commercial POV endorsement Skysmith 09:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge into Christ Church, Oxford. Done. Ifnord 05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student (Christ Church)[edit]

Read it once, then twice and if you still don't get it, read it once more!!! Anyway, regardless, this article does nothing to assert the imprtance of it's subject DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 09:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I'm not entirely sure that what's there really qualifies as a subject, let alone one which needs a separate article. BigHaz 10:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palmerston North Boys' High School 3rd XV[edit]

A High School's third Rugby team, however triumphant is simply not encyclopedic. Also suffers from POV and OR issues. --Aoratos 10:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On second thought, I can't even find info about the team at [30], which seems like the place where it would be. Delete unless something can be sourced. If it can, I revert back to my merge suggestion. GassyGuy 10:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you wouldn't :) It does not meet any of the speedy criteria (as it definitely asserts notability), so AfD is the way to go. Let's not stretch the speedy deletion criteria without discussion... --JoanneB 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooooh. My bad. Ham21 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy. There is strong consensus that the articles as they exist are not suitable for mainspace. Once they are cleaned up, they can be moved back. - brenneman {L} 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States health reform 1912-1920 - United States health reform under FDR - United States health reform under Truman - United States health reform under Nixon - United States health reform under Carter - United States health reform under Clinton[edit]

According to the discussion at Talk:Health care reform, the creation of this group of articles appears to have been encouraged by a college instructor at Duke University, User:Conoverc, for his Politics of Health Care class to address why universal health care proposals have been defeated despite overwhelming public support for universal coverage. To me, WP:OR appears to have been violated in that a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position appears in each article. He admitted to devising a common article template for his students to use in order to reach the conclusion "why the window of opportunity (for reform) closed", and the edit histories reveal a flurry of referenced assertions in the various sections of each article. In my opinion, the position being advanced is that reform or change is an "opportunity"; the synthesis is the A + B + C insertion of references to reach that conclusion. Medtopic 10:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaned my mind after doing a little quiet research Very Weak Keep All but these articles really need cleanup Aeon Insane Ward 18:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While the quote presented from the article is probably POV, it seems that deleting (or rewriting) a bad sentence would be preferable to deleting an article which has some useful content. As for the issue of "missing presidents" from the series, your position almost seems to be that, if we don't have an article about United States health reform under Reagan then we should delete United States health reform under Nixon. As an encyclopedia, shouldn't our response be to write the "missing" article about Reagan rather than delete the one about Nixon? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No the point is that the series was constructed as it is in order to advance a point of view, thus fauling afoul of the policy against original research. There is no excuse for a neutral series of articles on healthcare reform in the U.S. omitting coverage of the introduction of Medicare, which is one of the most important pieces of healthcare legislation. One could say that the 2003 reform act is too new to evaluate in an encyclopedic fashion. Why are all cases of significant reform omitted from the series? GRBerry 12:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find it somewhat ironic that I'm speaking in defense of these articles; 99% of my AfD votes are straight "Delete" because 99% of what comes through AfD is utter crap. These are not utter crap. They may be incomplete, POV, poorly written and partially redundant...but none of those are problems for which AfD is the best answer. The best answer is to rewrite, remove POV, and add more encyclopedic content, not to remove the useful information which is there. I know I'm starting to repeat myself now, but if information is missing why don't we add the needed info, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting useful content that simply needs improvement? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is certainly possible for editors to interpret Wikipedia policy differently, so calling this an "ill-considered and reflexive call for deletion" is unwarranted. If one believes that individual referenced points are strung together to make a point (i.e. connecting the dots), then he or she will view this as OR. If one does not believe that, then he or she will not. Medtopic 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly understand OR--as noted in my comment, I am not convinced that this is OR. The reason I suggested that the decisions of other voters was "reflexive", is because the issue here is unusually complex for AfD, and without an examination of the text, it may very well seem like OR on the surface. I'm no better than anyone else--sometimes I just jump on the dogpile and type "Delete per nom", but sometimes I see a flash of light in the article, and I investigate more carefully. Also, be assured that I am not accusing all editors who want to delete the article as being careless. AdamBiswanger1 21:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure which of the four of us you are accusing of carelessness, however, I think it's fair to grant the benefit of doubt to others here and assume that they have investigated carefully, too. The fact that three of the four editors voting "delete" thus far have referenced a particular section of WP:OR (i.e. synthesis of published material serving to advance a position) does not suggest that they have given only a cursory examination of the text, or that have voted reflexively, or that they are not capable of understanding the complexities of the AfD. Medtopic 22:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am willing to say that the other editors probably spent about 2 minutes in reading the articles. I respect you and all of the other editors here, and I am by no stretch of the imagination insulting them or looking down upon them because, well, we all do it (as I said). But to assume that every editor took long and deliberate look at each one, and upon a long period of thoughtful contemplation reached his or her decision would only be a lie to oneself, unless by some miracle each one actually did-- in which case I will tuck my tail between my legs and go home. But all of this is rather peripheral to my main contention, which is that this is not OR, and it is not advancing a position. And if it is? Well then we'll take it to the cleaners, not the cemetary. AdamBiswanger1 23:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'd really like to emphasize this part: "...take it to the cleaners, not the cemetary." We really shouldn't be deleting useful content that can reasonably be brought into compliance with policy, which this can. The policy problems are related to the quality of the writing, not the quality of the content. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to start a list and I hope that others who have 'voted' to keep and cleanup will sign on to help.

  1. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Not Sure if this is the palce for the list) Æon Insane Ward 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AdamBiswanger1 21:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. -- Longhair 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goulash Communism[edit]

Besides its obvious brevity the article contains nothing but an amalgam of highly superficial catchwords without any explanative value whatsoever and displays a clearly non-neutral point of view.
Many of the common complaints regarding articles on topics concerning "Socialism" apply here:
1. No socialist country has ever proclaimed itself to be "communist" this being merely the final goal society strives to reach in the distant future.
2. "'Lighter' version of communism" is highly tendentious, implying that "communism" as such would be "hard" only to be a bit "alleviated" in its "later stages".
3. "Much diminished socialist propaganda" ("propaganda" here obviously but unduly used as a derogative term) is totally incorrect. As in every other socialist country the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the forms of its dissemination in Hungary underwent adaptations and modernisations, especially after 1956. But neverthelees it remained the official guiding thought and was propagated as such right until 1989.
4. The introduction of some market elements (combined with planning) as was the case in Hungary (but not only there !) is in no way incomaptible with a socialist economy. Therefore no "aknowledging of a deviation" would have been necessary.
This artificially magnified discussion of certain idiosyncratic features of the building of a socialist society in individual countries, for insthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goulash_Communism&action=edit Edit this pageance in Hungary, should at best be avoided altogether. And if this proves to unfeasible, in the case of Hungary we already have the "Happiest Barrack" article (also fatally flawed but still far better than this one) of which this article is basically a shallow and useless reduplication.
I therefore demand the deletion of the article on "Goulash communism" as quickly as possible.
--Elsmlie 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Elsmlie 16:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Repair the various problems in the article mentioned in my original deletion request. Since the article is not very long and it's been me who brought this all up I could do so, if you agree.
2. Sometime in the future, merge the article with the "Happiest barrack" article and use "Goulash communism" as their common heading.
What do you think ? --Elsmlie 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and I ignored those dubious keeps, just for the record.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beefy (artist)[edit]

Podcaster, amateur webcomic artist, apparently unsigned nerdcore hip-hop artist (no albums yet). His claim to fame is two animations on albinoblacksheep.com. Please excuse me if I take that as a different meaning of the word fame from the one I am used to. Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - Beefy's too fat for wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.48.120 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 July 2006

I can assure you that these are not fake posts or accounts or whatever. Timco, Kahless, and Amy are just people who like my stuff. If you want to discredit their opinions and votes just because they want to keep the page up, then by all means don't let them have a say. Beefyness 05:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep:This page is not in violation of any of the vanity page rules. Beefy has gained a lot of street cred in the last few years as more people listen to his albums, read his comics and tune into his ever entertaining podcasts. knowlege of beefy and his work is a more than excellent introduction into the little known nerdcore hip-hop scene/genre. if there is a place on the web for things worth knowing about it's here on wikipedia, that is why beefy has a page here to begin with. 67.188.213.76 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Amy Hanson[reply]

  • Only registered accounts can vote. Thanks. Stubbleboy 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Sydney Demonstration School[edit]

Consensus seems to be that schools under high school age are not inherantly notable. Only actual claims at notability seem to fall under the history of the area rather than the school itself. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2013 World Championships in Athletics[edit]

Too far in the future, too speculative. Punkmorten 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the speculative nature of the article. Punkmorten 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cohearence[edit]

non-notable band Travelbird 11:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digimods[edit]

non-notable webpage Travelbird 11:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Sporting League[edit]

non-notable, a league (?), no Google hits Travelbird 11:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. It was a professional league, even if only for a short while. It was also a professional league in England, the home of football and a major footballing nation by almost any criteria.
2. 1970 was a watershed year for sponsorship in football, with the introduction of 3 major sponsor events (Texaco Cup and Watney Cup being the others), and the Ford Sporting League was an important part of the trend. This needs to be filled in better in the article, and I don't quite have the resources to do it.
3. It had a unique and interesting scoring system, about which much could be written. Vickser 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Comments updated further: Vickser 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathic Papers[edit]

essay/email, orginal research/not encyclopedic Travelbird 11:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Café Reconcile[edit]

I removed much of this article as a copyvio, and now what is left doesn't seem close to passing WP:CORP. It was prodded previously which was removed without comment. Kevin 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minidab[edit]

blatant advertising Travelbird 11:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tradecision[edit]

blatant advertising Travelbird 11:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Settlersindia[edit]

another advert Travelbird 11:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

AudiopleXus Mastering[edit]

advertising Travelbird 12:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep. --JoanneB 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mr. T Experience[edit]

This band does not meet the criteria on WP:MUSIC-- JoanneB 12:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whoa, you're right, I misjudged their record label and made a serious mistake while googling. My mistake. Closing as speedy keep, let's move on :) --JoanneB 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xentash[edit]

The latest version of www.xentash.com, has 85 members as of July 21. The designer of Xentash hopes to have 100 members by July 27. And WP:NOT the way to achieve that. Just zis Guy you know? 12:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the huge issue is, I'm not using Wikipedia to get members, as a matter of fact, only around 2 members have come from Wikipedia. Please don't delete this, it isn't intended as an advertisment.

It's non-notable, it doesn't have a place on Wikipedia.

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus War[edit]

Online game launched in May this year. No evidence of number of players, innovation, significance, external coverage, etc. No sign of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has the more normal RPG elements, like finding weapons, gaining experience and levelling up, buy skills and all the usual RPG fair, but it also contains elements of the more strategic RPGs, you have to keep your weapon stocks up, so your faction members actually have stuff to attack with, you can hold areas by building barricades, make your faction bonuses stronger by infusing squares on the map.
But unlike games like DarkThrone you don't do this by yourself, due to the games design its impossible, so if you want lots of faction bonuses, you have to organise the other players to infuse, if you want to attack someone you can't just click on their name and obliterate them, you have to find willing players in your faction and co-ordinate them, you want tons of guns and ammo, you have to keep players with crafting skills supplied or even forget that bit and make an alliance with another faction where they supply you with weapons in exchange for protection.
Its a browser based game that *encourages* interacting with the other players on a level I have yet to see in any other browser based game, having said that you can play on your own, thereýs nothing stopping you, but its a much less filling experience.
Now that all looks like a lot of gushing POV hyperbole, and of course there are things that annoy me in the game too, but the games faction system is very innovative. On --Meirleach 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion in question is being proposed for failing to meet such criteria as WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB, and WP:NN. None of these are actual criteria for deletion, but rather suggested guidelines. If we're bandying about proposed guidelines and essays, then I'd like to throw WP:NNOT into the mix. grummerx 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My general sense of this AFD is that of "here's a topic which doesn't interest me personally, let's throw as many proposed guidelines at it as possible and see if one sticks." -grummerx 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)$[reply]
  • Comment: WP:WEB is not a proposed guideline. --Peephole 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: And it doesn't really seem to apply in the sense in which you're trying to use it. See my comments above regarding WP:UCS -grummerx 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: See also my comments on the AfD for Pardus (game) regarding the applicability of WP:WEB to games such as this. --grummerx 23:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This goes a long way to explain why Something Awful, Genmay, Penny Arcade and other (wikiworthy) forums have a significant Nexus presence. I have to think it's the article's style, and not the game's merit or notoriety, driving the removal votes. Parent says as much. Mockturtl 16:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


1. Does NW need to, or already, fall under WP:SOFTWARE?
2. Does NW need to, or already, fall under WP:WEB?
3. If none of the above, is it notable?
I would argue that NW does not fall under either WP:SOFTWARE (as it is not a "software application", and in a category of games that is generally overlooked completely by ANY mainstream media. Whether it falls under WP:WEB is debatable, but it doesn't really seem to apply in this case. In addition, while I have participated in a good many AfDs that allege "WP:NOT a crystal ball", at this point it doesn't need to be. The site has thousands of unique users, with hundreds on at any given time. In addition, Urban Dead has an article as well. It is slightly fallacious to argue that it is not notable at this point by people arguing for a "Keep" as as stated above, Wiki is NOT a crystal ball. But I feel the article is notable. Cleanup it may need, but that's not a reason to delete it either. Tokakeke 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - The Urban Dead entry clearly cites three reliable mainstream sources. It also had a full-page article in print magazine PC Gamer last year. --Grole 04:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) This game has a huge player/fan base : Please do not quote large number of players unless you can prove it. I investigated into this matter and found out that there are only around 150 "characters" online at any one time. It is hard to see how there could be even 1000 "active" unique players in the game based on this data. (note: 1 unique player can own multiple "characters" in the game)

2) This game is "better than" another game : Please refrain from citing reasons like "this game is better than World of Warcraft" or the more general "this game is good/fun". All these are POV opinions and not facts. Wikipedia do not delete software entries based on POV opinions.

3) Using other wiki articles as examples : This discussion is about this article only. If you feel that there are existing wiki articles that "deserves to be deleted more" then feel free to nominate them for deletion on their respective pages. The existance of other articles is not an excuse to keep this one.

If this game indeed have a huge player base and thought to be good (or better than mainstream commercial MMORPGs like some claimed) then it'll eventually earn coverage and become notable. From what I understand, this game was heavily inspired by Urban Dead which earned itself three citation from notable sources. Remiraz 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Re: player base: While I sincerely appreciate your effort to actually investigate the item in question, it would be nice if you'd also make an effort to understand how the mechanics of the game affect the number of concurrent users at any one time. In short, the AP mechanism means that users will typically only be online twice a day, and only for a few minutes at a time -- this happens to be directly mentioned in the article itself and should be apparent from a quick perusal of the game. The number of concurrent users you quote (150) is quite large when considered in this light.
2) Re: Comparisons to other games: Agreed. NPOV statements and comparisons to other games do not belong in this discussion. However, this same standard should also apply to NPOV claims of "non-notability", e.g. claiming that a game can't be as good as others simply due to lack of mainstream media attention. To your assertion that "Wikipedia do not delete software entries based on POV opinions" I counter that this is exactly what you are attempting to do.
3) Re: Using other wiki articles as examples: Agreed on the point of comparing this article to others that may or may not deserve deletion. However, pointing out articles which have set a precedent by surviving similar AfDs is entirely acceptable. The mention of BattleMaster above is indeed pertinent to this discussion as it has just survived an AfD proposed on the same grounds as that for Nexus War.
I'd now like to add my own items to your list if I may, for the benefit of those championing deletion:
4) If you're going to question the size of the player-base, at least make a passing effort to understand the game mechanics. If I were to claim that chess is non-notable because I watched a game and never saw more than 2 players, I'd be betraying a flawed understanding of that game, and this instance is no different.
5) Don't resort to straw man arguments. When verifiability of an article is mentioned, don't couch your argument in terms of notability.
6) Don't use Alexa as a measuring stick (ever). To quote WP:SET: "Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites for several reasons." Ignoring Alexa results is especially important when measuring a game such as Nexus War or Urban Dead. Players of these types of game tend to favor Firefox since the game community releases Firefox extensions to aid gameplay, such as NWTool and the Nexus War Homing Beacon. Alexa, on the other hand, is compatible only within Internet Explorer and would therefore never register many, if not most, of the users.
-- grummerx 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) It would be nice if the people who have access to the secret player stats told us how many people were actually active in the game.
2) Whether the game is as "better" than others is irrelevant. If someone claims the game is non-notable and that it must be a bad game, it's only the non-notable aspect that this AfD concerns itself with.
3) No, this is just as bad. Battlemaster and Shartak seem to have survived simply because nobody who agreed strongly with the AfD happened to read the page, and because somebody who disagreed with it decided to close it. A couple of articles sneaking through AfD doesn't mean they should be kept forever (articles often come up for deletion multiple times), and particularly not that all similar games should automatically be kept.
4) Again, it would be nice to actually see some figures about the number of players, and the number of retained and active players.
5) That's fair enough.
6) It might be erratic, but even if players of these games mostly use Firefox, Urban Dead has an Alexa ranking of 14,711, compared to Nexus War's 200,691.
And to add my own:-
7) "I think this game might be notable one day" is an argument for deleting the article and recreating it if its subject becomes notable, rather than keeping it and waiting. (People should accept the possibility that this game may never become notable.) --Grole 03:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Agreed, these figures should be published. However, my comment was in response to Remiraz's own investigation of the game, wherein he was able to see that there were "around 150" characters active just at that moment in time. I was merely pointing out the fallacy in Remiraz's use of a flawed extrapolation of this number to claim that there couldn't be very many real players in the game.
2) Again, note that I agreed.
3) I do happen to agree with your points about the other AfDs not necessarily being set in stone, but must point out that doesn't preclude us from mentioning them. AfDs don't happen in a vacuum, and similar AfDs elsewhere on Wikipedia are most definitely valid points of discussion, whether or not you happen to agree with the outcome. We don't necessarily have to follow their precedent, but you can't just pretend those AfDs don't exist.
4) Agreed, see point 1.
5) ...
6) Please, please, read WP:SET and Alexa. There is absolutely no reason to continue referring to Alexa. Continued mentions of Alexa just serve to distract from valid points of discussion.
7) Perhaps. My contention though, is that Nexus War is notable now, or at the very least can't be shown as "non-notable" by any honestly applicable guideline. Please refer to my comments on the AfD for Pardus. To summarize:
  • The only real notability guideline that has been claimed here is WP:WEB.
  • WP:WEB was designed to weed out trivial, easily created, sites such as vanity pages and web comics.
  • Nexus War and the other games in this category are not easily created, and do not easily attract a user-base of thousands.
  • Applying WP:UCS and considering the spirit of the law makes it apparent that WP:WEB wasn't intended to weed out non-trivial creations such as these.
  • There should perhaps be a notability guideline for these sorts of games, but until one exists it's better to err on the side of leniency rather than to delete legitimate information.
-- grummerx 07:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecorp[edit]

Online game launched June 1 2006. No evidence of players, innovation, external coverage etc. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE, in other words, and lack of sources suggests WP:OR if not outright WP:VSCA. Just zis Guy you know? 12:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 19:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Freaks of Nature[edit]

A game launched last Novemner and according to the article still in beta. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lennexe Productions[edit]

blatant advertising Travelbird 12:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as recreation of content deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjabi Prison Match. Just zis Guy you know? 11:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi Prison[edit]

Tagged as repost, but (a) different content and (b) deleted by CSD G1 anyway, so bringing to AfD. At the very least the title needs changing. Wrestlecruft. Just zis Guy you know? 12:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think it's even worth a merge or redirect to The Great Khali as that wrestler apparently didn't even appear in what was supposed to be his one-off signature gimmick match. MLA 08:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moneysavingexpert.com[edit]

looks like spam to me. Pap3rw8 12:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not your personal blog to post product reviews. --Xrblsnggt 03:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Nicholson MYP[edit]

Tagged for speedy as autobiography, which it is, but that's not a speedy criterion. Appears to violate WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN. No sources. Just zis Guy you know? 12:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good luck to him, but the article barely asserts notability and is mostly unveriable. Half a dozen relevant google hits. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity, and just so you know; vanity articles are candidates for speedy deletion. [34] Rob.derosa 21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A3 - no content other than a template. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surveillance and Control Group (disbanded) RAAF[edit]

looks non-notable Nearly Headless Nick 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Having a gallery of 'fair use' images is far from 'fair use', and possible copyvio too. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formula Dé circuits[edit]

Unencyclopdic gallery of fair use images. Delete. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The TV irritainment programs have millions of repeat viewers, sometimes tens of millions. Formula Dé has a few thousand or at most a few ten-thousands of face-to-face players, and big multi-game tournaments might have a few dozen FD players. There might be a few thousand more players at online sites like BSW if they have FD. That big difference in broadness-of-influence is what hits Wikipedia standards; FD has narrower notability no matter whether it does much more to make people think and interact and make their own fun. Barno 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oghamura[edit]

oghamura -wikipedia gives 103 Google hits, all of them due to someone using the word as their name on forums. "ogham ura" -wikipedia only gives three hits. Probably someone's personal artificial script, nn if it exists. ∅ (∅), 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Orator[edit]

Original article was deleted. The new article is much better but unfortunately the subject is still non-notable. It is the school newspaper of a local elementary school. Notability is asserted but there is no verifiable evidence of it. Replaced prod with Afd. My vote would be Delete Dipics 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Brodack[edit]

Vanity, YouTube Cruft, Non-Notable person Bschott 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Tate[edit]

This is a long, unreferenced autobiography which, in the last paragraph, makes a fairly tenuous claim to notability. Wikipedia is not MySpace --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SEFA[edit]

It's an advertisement. Fails WP:CORP and WP:SPAM and WP:V Mattisse 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine rescue mentions SCBA: it does not go into details about them. It also points to some makes of SCBA, including the SEFA.
http://www.therebreathersite.nl/Zuurstofrebreathers/English/sabre_sef.htm (the link that Capit objected to) points to a good description of the SEFA breathing set. Its link to a guestbook to sign, is irrelevant here. I am not going to refuse a link to a very good informative external site merely because the external page pointed to has a link to a guestbook tacked on its end. Anthony Appleyard 04:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goad[edit]

Appears to be almost entirely OR. Violates WP:OR. The links provided do not meet WP:V Listerin 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree. Your revert was fine. --Bhadani 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to be civil and don't bite the nominator of this article. AdamBiswanger1 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatmouse[edit]

Just a non-notable web meme. An encyclopedic article could be written on mice that are genetically engineered such that they metabolize food differently, but it'd be at a different article name and it wouldn't be about some silly meme. Cyde↔Weys 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be verifiable, but it's non-notable. ; ) AdamBiswanger1 23:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syllable Counter[edit]

This isn't an encyclopedia article; it's unclear if it ever can be. It seems to be some sort of indirect advertising for the website that's linked to. Delete. User:Angr 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snowball redirect. JDoorjam Talk 05:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Spirt Award[edit]

G6: Housekeeping: Better, properly titled page exists. See Independent Spirit Award. Kitty Davis 13:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kwan Rin[edit]

The article has close to no information at all, no info is given why this person is of any notice outside of NK, and the only source is a North Korean website, highly POV. --Konstantin 15:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of states where language is a political issue[edit]

Useless POV list. Language is a political issue in more or less all countries. Political disputes are listed haphazardly and subjectively as minor, moderate, serious etc. This is far too vague a subject to make a list about. Ezeu 14:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd agree; although I recognise the subjectivity, the page provides a useful starting point for someone researching language politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.47.14 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 24 July 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llama Love Society[edit]

Due to the fact that this article is only a microscopic part of the TV series "The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron" and barely even relevant, I nominate this article for deletion. In no way is this topic an important part of the series, and it has only been used in two episodes. Also, those episodes have not given any insight into what the Llama Love Society really is but instead has just shown that two characters (one is not even a recurring character) are members and have a membership card.

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid 2002[edit]

Quite Frankly, I feel that the article for Metroid 2002 does not belong on Wikipedia, as it is merely an ordinary fan site. Moreover, there's not much to write about, outside of a brief infobox and introduction paragraph. (PS, sorry If I posted this on the wrong page, I am rather new to Wikipedia) --ShadowJester07 07:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Deal Wrestling[edit]

Group of backyard wrestlers. Original research, non-notable Xyzzyplugh 11:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ifnord 05:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votebank[edit]

This article is created with sole purpose of pushing one's POV .The creater user:Gamesmasterg9 after unsuccessfuly trying to move the preexisting page Vote Bank to Votebank politics in India has created this page which cannot be moved now to the original place because it has a redirect to this article.This article which is merely a bundle of opinion of one person cannot replace the content rich and well referenced earlier version which is now Votebank politics in India.The person has history of trolling and does not believe in consensus.Please DELETE this page and restore the original version.See the relevant talk on the earlier page too.I agree the term is Indian but it does not mean it talks of Indian politics only and we cannot create pages with similar contents and subject.I would also recommend BLOCK for this person.Holy---+---Warrior 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A votebank is a political concept. The older page was a description of votebank politics in India exclusively. The move was justified.Gamesmasterg9 20:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plz note:The article will never grow beyond present size if it does not adress indian context.There is very little or no usage of the term outside India.The present content of the article is nothing but few sentences taken out of the original article.With time both article will have same/similar contents.Will you merge them then.Holy---+---Warrior 08:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PLz go through this too.[36],[37],[38] Holy---+---Warrior 08:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request - please don't make this personal.Gamesmasterg9 11:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A parallel discussion has taken place on this page too[39].One may refer to this too.Holy | Warrior 16:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Satin:Plz note the title occupied by this page has previously been held by what is Votebank politics in India.Check the move logs for better view.A question to you,if this case is not trolling,then if we assume a merger here,anybody creating a similar page again after merger,diverting the links, will not be called trolling again????Infact a merger of Vote Bank and Vote bank had already taken place,before creation of this article.Lastly I would say notability is not in question here because it has been already discussed during AfD of previous article,Perhaps you haven't gone through that.If we don't fix this problem now,I am pretty sure You will soon find pages with Vote bank politics in Kuwait,Votebank politics in malaysia with size comparable to the size of this article.In light of this you may reconsider your vote.Hope for the best from you.Holy | Warrior 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the pages you mention are created, how is that a bad thing? Why exactly is a longer article better than a short one?Gamesmaster G-9 17:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web Designing[edit]

non-notable company Travelbird 12:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, db-author.  RasputinAXP  c 17:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the New Jersey Devils[edit]

As I previously noted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, this article has no use. During the creation of the article, the creator in question said that they would be returning to the article in an attempt to try and turn it into a Featured Article. It has now been four months since the articles creation, and the article has not been touched once by the creator since then, and has also been left in decay for the past two months at the least. The article also sets a bad precedent insomuch as the New Jersey Devils are only a 24 year old hockey team, while other, more storied teams (such as the Original Six of the National Hockey League do just fine without the need of a "History of the ..." article for their own team histories. While this article may have one or two things of particular note that the team's main article neglects to mention (for example the controversy over the team's name a year ago), just about all of the article is a carbon copy of the team's history on the main page with some minor tweaks on the wording here and there.--Resident Lune 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It's just an expansion of an important section of an important entity. Why slaughter the information when there is not a question of notability of the New Jersey Devils, and there is certainly nothing wrong with having a history article, so long as it exceeds the limits of the main page. AdamBiswanger1 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) I didn't realize how extensive the NJD article was. AdamBiswanger1 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dunno about that. Montreal Canadiens could probably be easily broken into three articles: Current team, history and records. For a 95+ year old team, multiple articles make perfect sense, and are almost required. For a 25 year old team, not so much. Resolute 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can take care of that, then.  RasputinAXP  c 17:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/sources[edit]

This article was created in an attempt to generate a subpage: [40] and it contains nothing but images, including a few from copyrighted books. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Gillies[edit]

Very likely a hoax. Google for "Connor Gillies" "Real Radio Scotland" gets exactly 1 hit - this article. Delete. Kimchi.sg 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Screamin' Eagles[edit]

Local Welsh band that fails WP:BAND notability guidelines. Speedy tag removed twice by author. Google hits for ("The Screamin' Eagles" + band) = 181. No listing on Allmusic. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my brother's band (Thomas Jones). What do I have to do to the article to avoid deletion? JayJonesUK 17:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)JayJonesUK[reply]

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

The result was merge & redirect; thankfully the merging is already done. Mangojuicetalk 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Houses from A Song of Ice and Fire[edit]

This page is merely a list with little encyclopedic information about the less important noble houses in the fantasy series A Song of Ice and Fire. The major houses of the setting already each have their own pages, and all of the information on this page is already replicated on those pages, or could be merged to those pages with little effort. This page is therefore merely an indescriminate collection of information in violation of WP:NOT. Indrian 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo.com[edit]

Straight advertising/spam. Original author removed prod. My vote would be Delete Dipics 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author also removed a speedy deletion notice on Bingoadvantage Lurker 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Rose de Valladares[edit]

Survived a VfD nearly two years ago, but I hardly see why. It reads like vanity and/or advertising, fails WP:BIO, and the subject only receives 126 google hits, most of them either wikipedia and its mirrors or links to presentations she has given. This person clearly does not belong here. Indrian 15:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McGrath (poet)[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 was Speedy delete. Normally, AfDs run for about 5 days or so, but this seems to be the most appropriate action. At minimum, The article is not a serious attempt at writing encyclopedic content for this project. HappyCamper 16:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Macaroni Monster[edit]

Nonsense article, looks to be a parody of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Tags have been removed by author on numerous occasions. Wildthing61476 15:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a nonsense article, it's an article trying to prove a point, just as the original intent of the FSM tried to prove a point. M_Castaldo 15:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge the deletion of this article, as it has no religious or historical value of any kind.

Georg von Brandenburg, PhD (This was copy and pasted from the Talk page for this AfD).

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fused Solutions[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP. A prod and a prod2 tag were removed by the creator Fused (talk · contribs) without any explanation. The user admits he is spamming (although in all fairness he seems to honestly fail to realize it's not acceptable practice on Wikipedia). Pascal.Tesson 15:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Baz[edit]

No evidence given of notability, despite long-term flag on article Dweller 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph O'Brien, Composer[edit]

Non notable, with contact info; reads like an ad. -Sanbeg 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Ng[edit]

No content indicating notability of the subject. Page is an orphan with no pages linking to it. Fairsing 16:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nn-bio. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bio does not a speedy deletion candidate make. "No assertion of notability" does. Delete - CheNuevara 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Christensen[edit]

Daughter of André the Giant, but not notable in her own right Zerbey 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge Mangojuicetalk 15:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liang Xing Long[edit]

Non-notable character within the Dragon Ball GT anime series, and a copy of information already found in List of dragons in Dragon Ball. Only one of these characters (Yi Xing Long) has any real importance in the franchise. I am coupling this with others and Evil Dragons as well. Small amount of different info on some pages that can be merged, but at most they should redirect to the listed article.

Included in nomination:

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most endangered United States cities[edit]

This article/list is essentially entirely unsourced and speculative POV and original research, and really could never be anything but POV and OR. The article currently uses three criteria to determine if a city is "endangered," thus warranting mention in the article: declining population, "most in danger of natural disaster," and "most outrageous crime rates." In my opinion, the first and last of these could be sourced then split into articles of their own (perhaps List of cities in the United States by population growth and List of cities in the United States by crime rate). However, this article is about "endangered" cities, which is a very vague concept. It cites no sources and is speculative in large part ("Enormous earthquake predicted within the next 100 years. City remains unprepared and buildings are not up to code. Towers as far away as Chicago expected to sway when this earthquake strikes"). Finally, note that New York and Washington, D.C. are conspicuously absent from the list. Though it seems that these two cities would be more likely to experience a terror attack than any other US cities, adding these to the list would be purely speculative. Delete. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Girl Emily (blog)[edit]

Viral marketing has no place on wikipedia. Violates WP:SPAM --DarkAudit 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional from MrSassyPants via IRC: if they can make the article into something useful instead of a summary of the blog and some semi-useful links, keep it. Its just that in its present form the article is 100% pure shit. --DarkAudit 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Viral marketing ploy, just a few weeks old. If it must be kept, redirect to Court TV, which conducted the viral marketing campaign. --Durin 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurvedic Malas[edit]

Article fails WP:NN and WP:CSD A7. Google search turns up only 28 hits, most of which have nothing to do with this topic. A possible hoax. Originally PRODded, but User:Kappa removed the prod tag without giving a reason, as it appears he/she has been doing for quite some time now. Green451 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. My mistake, I have striked this from the nom. Thanks. Green451 20:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Real Pleasure(webcomic)[edit]

Delete as it is a non-notable web comic. There are 8 strips all posted today by the author to his blog. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, they were posted July 21st, not today. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheWxPage.Com[edit]

Delete as a non-notable web page. It also fails the vanity test as it is written by one of the page's developers. The topic page looks good, but is basially just a collection of national weather agency links and graphics which is regularly updated. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. The text is the same as was in the previously deleted version of the article. In addition to reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhaseSpace, I had a look at all of the sources cited in the prior discussion (which are also cited in the article). None made any more than tangential mention of this company, supporting the view given by editors in the prior discussion that the WP:CORP criteria were not satisfied. An independently written magazine feature article on the company would satisfy the criteria. But a one sentence mention as an example of "other companies" (such as is the case with the cited ungraduate final year project) does not. Uncle G 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhaseSpace[edit]

Has been recreated after afd deletion on July 20, 2006. Mattisse 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few articles as per the Wikipedia rules and expected to be part of the Consensus. I also expected to have to continue to add more and more articles until I wore them down. Someone unilaterally showed they have more brownie points than I do, and removed it, without saying who. I will continue to improve the site. Tmcsheery 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insite[edit]

Non-notable company with an advertisement as an encyclopedia entry. Delete. Gump Stump 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Matchstick Men[edit]

Non-notable according to WP:MUSIC. It was previously deleted by me according to WP:PROD, but the deletion was contested after it was deleted Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Review of gig in the Guardian, lest someone decides the Scotsman is not a national newspaper... http://arts.guardian.co.uk/reviews/story/0,11712,1538361,00.html. They also played at the wickerman festival in Scotland this year (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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger A. Wilson[edit]

NN politician -Sanbeg 17:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree I don't deserve to be listed in Wikipedia, but the Mount Kosciuszko inclusion, while true, was intended to be humorous. You guys really should lighten up a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.128.112 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Skye[edit]

Is not notable herself. The loose notability claim declares that her site is the first to use high definition video in her video shoots. Other than that, it doesn't seem that she herself is all that notable. Therefore, this article fails to assert notability per WP:BIO and any criteria on the WP:PORN BIO proposal. Delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jed Hensley[edit]

Vanity page created by User:Jedhensley. Recreated after previous speedy deletion. This almost meets CSD A7, but because of the author's vigorous objecting, I felt it would be good to obtain consensus. I think "youngest Special Olympics Coach in Texas" is far short of WP:BIO standards... it is a claim to notability, though, and the only one I could find. Mangojuicetalk 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G4 If it was speedied and recreated, it qualifies. Otherwise, just Delete. -Royalguard11Talk 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Nawlin says, the first speedy was due to him boldly userfying the page contents. It was deleted under ((db-empty)) which doesn't apply anymore, so I don't think G4 works here. Mangojuicetalk 05:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Rebate Realty[edit]

This look awfully like spam to me. Aristiana 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Christmas (musical)[edit]

Non-notable local production of a musical DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by Ed g2s --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Peppard[edit]

Reads like a combination of a hoax and attack page. Probably fails WP:BIO too. No vote - listed here for consensus decision. exolon 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrthodoxWiki[edit]

Article isn't notable according to WP:WEB. It has an alexa ranking of only 312,567 and a google count of only 54,100. The article is already listed at Christian_wikis, which I think should suffice.--Peephole 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it's fine to delete at this stage. It still is mentioned within the Christian Wikis page.Dogface 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanime (video)[edit]

Unsourced original research and neologisms. Not to be confused with FanimeCon. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Valenzetti[edit]

This information is not notable. This person is a small part of an alternate reality game for the TV show Lost. No sources are cited, and the page is pretty much inactive. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Peterson The X[edit]

Nonnotable student; speedy tags removed so here we are. NawlinWiki 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Olivieri[edit]

The article for Pat's Steaks already provides the history of Mr. Olivieri and his contribution to the development of the cheesesteak Konczewski 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post [43], Los Angeles Times, [44] and the New York Times [45] have all reported his death so there is enough material for a standalone article. Redirect as a second best option. Capitalistroadster 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aline media[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, WP:AD, and WP:VANITY as User:Alinemedia has created a redirect to the article from userspace. Teke 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep and rename. SynergeticMaggot 05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of places beyond Bikini Bottom[edit]

User:Cafzal listed it for speedy because "No importance or significance. I have a hard time even seeing how this is a value for entertainment informational purposes" but I felt that this deserved a full AfD. I vote for a possible rename to something like Places in SpongeBob SquarePants with Bikini Bottom having a link to its article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Through Your Wires[edit]

I originally put a merge to The Joshua Tree tag on this track from the album, but there is nothing in this article that isn't on the album page. U2 are, of course, notable, but this song (never released as a single) doesn't quite make the grade for its own page DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the problem here is that this particular article really has no additional interesting information. Since it has been a stub since it's creation, maybe a U2 fan can add some content to it. DrunkenSmurf 20:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by JoJan. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Elise[edit]

Non-notable voice actor with one credit. 378 GHits, however most of the results do not refer to a voice actor. Article was tagged for speedy (by me) but removed by page creator, who also left a message on my talk page attacking the tag. hateless 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The defined reason for deletion was because one cannot attribute that she did or did not appear in Kiddy Grade based on the fact that she is non-notable. Which is an unjustified reason. And hateless appropriates this as his reason in the very same place on his talk page. Just because she is not particularly famous, that doesnt constitute as a valid reason for deletion, mainly as an encyclopedia is for the collection of information, irrelevant of how important that information is. Look it up in a dictionary. I made the page to rid of red links on the Kiddy Grade page, nothing more nothing less. I am not a particular fan of this person, I just do not want the red link. --Crampy20 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are two ways to get rid of a red link. One is to create an article; the other is to edit the page and change the link to plain text. The second is often the better choice. Always consider both options. Fan-1967 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you care to look at Kiddy Grade and then go to the cast list, you will see under the present situation one cannot change the to text. Also a page about a person cannot be expressed on a separate page. Consider having Bill Gates bio on the Microsoft page. Does it make sense? Of course not!--Crampy20 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The cast list is editable, and you could change the entry from [[Melissa Elise]] to Melissa Elise, which would eliminate the redlink. As far as the bio information is concerned, there isn't any, so nothing further is needed. Fan-1967 20:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BIO is NOT policy, seems stupid to use non policy as a reason for deletion, does it not? Furhermore the page states that the subject is contentious and this:
"Important note: Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7 (Unremarkable people or groups)."
Speedy deletion refers to these things. Patent Nonsense, Test Pages, Pure Vandalism, Recreation of deleted material, banned user, housekeeping, author requests deletion, talk pages of pages that do not exist and office actions. None of these refer to unimportant persons. And under A7 (Unremarkable persons) it refers to AFD to decide if the subject is worth deletion. Which is what has eventually been done, after the original (without proper reason) speedy deletion was imposed. Thus hateless actually broke policy.
Thus under all this the above Delete is unfounded and an affective break against policy, AFD is designed to decide this, but if AFD refers to articles which refers to AFD no decision can be made.
--Crampy20 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:DEL, an official policy of WP. It explicitly states articles that fail WP:BIO as eligible for deletion. Also, WP:CSD another official policy, lists articles that do not assert notability as articles that can be speedy deleted. hateless 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see where the criteria for a speedy deletion really applies here. This article is not up for a speedy delete. AFD is an appropriate venue for articles that may not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia under the appropriate guidelines but do not qualify for a speedy delete. Dipics 20:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment The criteria for speedy deletion applies from here([46]) and here([47]) as he asserted that it should have been. Also the rules that contribute to delete an article are stated as this "The articles for deletion (AFD) process, supported by two companion processes, speedy deletion and proposed deletion". Deletion policy (Wikipedia:Deletion_policy) refers also to proposed delete, which does not apply and AFD, which is currently under way. The reason that this is brought up under AFD is also because deletion guides and thus speedy deletion indicate to bring this to AFD as described earlier.

Basically policy indicates purely and simply to refer to AFD and thus AFD must make the decision, but because of this AFD cannot refer to policy for its reasons because policy directs to AFD. The need to delete this page doesn't come any non-AFD criteria, as described earlier, and is based entirely on wether or not this article is useful. Melissa Elise is a recent voice actress and she is soon to have many more roles. This page will have to eventually be made anyway, and is there really a reason to delete it? It isn't spam or anything else. This has started to become personal... --Crampy20 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After all that, I the Author of the page Melissa Elise propose Deletion, under the simple fact that the aforementioned person has no biographical information available and that all information on the page is contained elsewhere and that no more information will be available as this only instance of voice acting was in 2002. I will contact an admin for deletion. (Thank you Fan-1967, your comment, though simple, was the simple solution.)

Comment AFD is the way we Wikipedians get together to determine if an article is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Policies such as WP:DEL and, to a lesser extent, guidelines such as WP:BIO help to set the standards for these discussions so they don't fall into a free for all. While WP:DEL tells us to list an article on WFD to gain consensus, it also specifically instructs us to use guidelines such as WP:BIO as an aid in determining notability. Trying to argue that policy doesn't apply to AFD is not likely to convince anyone but yourself. You state above that Melissa is "soon to have many more roles" but one of the tenets of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball. Perhaps we should wait to see if she actually does get some more jobs instead of assuming that she will. If and when she does, that is time enough to add her. Dipics 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kusma (討論) 11:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oval Bumper Stickers[edit]

A list of those little vanity stickers. As you can get them just about anywhere, this list is never going to be complete. While the little stickers themselves are a notable fad and certainly worthy of an article, an attempt to list every single oval sticker that someone might make is not overly encyclopedic. BigDT 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web design award[edit]

Original research TigerShark 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both. Mailer Diablo 17:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing fetish: petticoating, Fetish clothing: petticoating[edit]

Two re-posts/forks under a strange title. The consensus version is at Pinafore eroticism. Dr Zak 19:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic Geopolitical Thinking in South America[edit]

This article, though very well-written, is also lacking context (its first sentence does not even explain the meaning of the term). In addition, it has been completely written (excluding markup, etc) by one user, User:Jack Child, who is also the author of the book which this article references. So there is the possibility that this may be copyed straight out of the book, leading to copyright complications. I'm not sure if deleting it would be the right thing to do, but I at least wanted to bring this to the attentions of people with a better understanding of the policy than I do JianLi 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deponia[edit]

Deponia (deponija) means garbage dump. There is no official place called Deponia and all of the Roma settlements are regarded to as "unhygienic settlement" and if any official would name them 'deponija' it would be most probably considered as an insult. To conclude - this article is fake. Delete. Avala 19:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not know much about quarters of Belgrade, but there is also quarter named Deponija in Novi Sad. See the map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Novi_sad_quarters.png So, it is not something unusual at all. If such settlement exist, there is no reason why article about it should not exist. PANONIAN (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So they have a garbage dump in Novi Sad? That's amazing! --LambiamTalk 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was not the point. There is a garbage dump there all right, but there are also some people that live there, thus it is also a settlement, not only a garbage dump. I presume same thing is a case in Belgrade. PANONIAN (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is - it is a generic name. We can`t call it a Deponija with big D as such a settlement exists in every town and it is not even a settlement but homeless people living on landfill zone. Avala
Ok, maybe then name of the article should be moved to "Deponia, Belgrade", while "Deponia" could be disambiguation page describing other meanings of the word. PANONIAN (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That site obviously refer to garbage dump, not to settlement. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many of the city quarters in the Serbian cities officially do not exist. Cities are usually divided into "mesne zajednice" ("local communities"), which may or may not correspond with traditional or known city quarters. Officially, only "mesne zajednice" exist, and everything else is unofficial. PANONIAN (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant of the Goddess[edit]

This is both non-notable and spammy JianLi 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers[edit]

Non-notable. It has been discussed and deleted before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers), but the content has been substantially changed and expanded. TigerShark 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff. Which notabiliy criteria are you using? I have tried to fit it with the film criteria, but can't. The Times article just seems to be a fairly random reference to a film found by the journalist and I'm not sure how important the MTV review is (does anybody know how difficult it is to get a review there?). Regarding the iFilm inclusion, they may not take rubbish but, again, how hard is it to get on there? Cheers TigerShark 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTFILM would not apply here anyway, as it's a nonbinding essay lacking broad support. I think the MTV + Times citation meet WP:WEB, as I also believe its inclusion on iFilm does ("The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."). --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as a recreation of previously deleted content (content was not identical, but gave no additional evidence of notability; previous AfD hinged on lack of notability, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Sudoku). bd2412 T 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

House Sudoku[edit]

Has already been deleted once, I was about to speedy it, but I can't guarantee that the content hasn't been significantly changed. I vote Delete per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Sudoku. tmopkisn tlka 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Green Primary School, Crawley[edit]

A school with 150 pupils is surely not notable Computerjoe's talk 20:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also lets say someone made a school (got it credited ect) and it only had lets say 10 to 20 people? Would you still include that? This schoool only has 150 students, there are preschools in some areas that have more than that yet they are not included here either. Aeon Insane Ward 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of mathematical induction[edit]

This article was PROD'd with the reason, "nonstandard presentation of trivial material". That didn't seem an appropriate reason for PROD, so I'm AfD-ing for further discussion. I have no preference regarding deletion. Thanks. RJH (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge the concepts into the section Mathematical induction#Proof or reformulation of mathematical induction . CMummert 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Hazell[edit]

This shows the signs of being a vanity page, created by User:Hazellj2 whos only contributions are to this article. No details are provided which explain what Hazell did for the six radio stations he worked for, nor are there any sources. Google searching for "James Hazell" +radio results in 363 hits but even then I was unable to find anything of note, so here it is. RFerreira 16:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I was not aware that Wikipedia was so heavily censored. I wrongly assumed that information to the general public was not controlled in this manner.

Please delete - I would not want to be a part of such an ill thought out regime.

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Becker[edit]

This article has remained a substub since its creation one year ago. While Becker may or may not be notable, the article itself not only fails WP:PORN BIO, it is damn close to meeting our speedy deletion criteria. At the time of nomination, this article lists only one film in the videography, does nothing to assert notability of the subject, and provides nothing in the way of references. RFerreira 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My experience is that tlaVideo generally has the most complete filmography; even though they are a retail site, they still list films that are out of print or no longer available. Their credits list includes information (when available) for Country, Studio, Cast, and Director - clicking an entry in the list produces a filmography filtered by the contents of the link. Vivid and, to a lesser extent, HisXpress tend to delete films from their lists that are no longer available for purchase or rent (download), but they are still worth checking, although their search engines are not as robust or intuitive. Searching "Paul Becker" in the search box at HisXpress, for example, will get you a list of every film with someone named Paul or Becker. There is a drop-down list of performers to search by name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chidom (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, they're mine. Sorry I forgot to sign them! (Thanks, RFerreira) Chidom 05:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuklear Age[edit]

Nonnotable self-published comic book; 88 unique Ghits, Amazon sales rank below 300,000. NawlinWiki 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shartak[edit]

Online browser game launched last year. No indication of notability or a large number of players. Doesn't seem to adhere to WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB. 1680 google hits. Alexa ranking: 1,743,476. Peephole 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read the WP:WEB article and note that the the 3 listed criteria are prefaced as being "some rough guidelines", not all-inclusive and by no means "requirements". Then, peruse the that entry's talk page and note the various threads concerning the current lack of "notability" criteria for web-based entries, and the overall disfavor with which this particular guideline is viewed. ---Jackel 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB is generally accepted throughout wikipedia. And yes it is a guideline, if you can state why Shartak should be considered an exception from this guideline please state so. --Peephole 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies listed on NASDAQ[edit]

The list of companies listed on the NASDAQ changes daily, often with multiple changes per day. It's unfeasible to keep to a canonical list current without introducing an automated mechansim. Trying to keep the list current by hand results in unreliable data. Ronnotel 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to Xbox_Live#Gamerscore. Ifnord 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerscore[edit]

Non-notable gamercruft neologism. De-prodded sans explanation by article's creator/sole editor. --Icarus (Hi!) 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 21:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Famiglietti[edit]

Nonnotable songwriter, 9 unique Ghits. Also listing his song Savannah Breeze. NawlinWiki 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both. Fails WP:MUSIC. -Seidenstud 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart intercom codes[edit]

non-notable, unencylopedic. Internal corporate info. Dr. Cash 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pickard Chilton[edit]

Page originally tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of www.pickard Chilton.com, tag removed by author. Prodded, against tag removed by author. Article is blatant c&p from above website, reads as advertising/spam Wildthing61476 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Robert Condon[edit]

The title of the article is "Dr. Robert Condon" but the article is about John F. Condon. The article duplicates verbatim the information about John F. Condon that appears in Lindbergh kidnapping. Medtopic 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete - full copyvio from [58] —Mets501 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defendion[edit]

Non-notable product; 99 Google hits. Reads like an advertisement. User's first edit. Haakon 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfanbase.com[edit]

No alexa ranking, doesn't meet WP:WEB Xyzzyplugh 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted. No brainer indeed. kingboyk 10:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a World Cup Spreadsheet in MS Excel[edit]

Clearly a how-to guide. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Nothing really else to say except delete. Wickethewok 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Wegman[edit]

non-notable &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge all but Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) to List of Kiddy Grade characters. Mangojuicetalk 16:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddy Grade characters[edit]

I prodded some of these articles earlier but they were deprodded without any comment by their author. I feel that they relate to characters from a very minor animé series, and may constitute fancruft.

The articles I am nominating are:

I am not nominating the following lists at this time:

I feel we do not need detailed articles on all these characters. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have half a mind to say delete the lot of them and start from scratch .. but I'd only push for that if we could throw in the similarly formatted character articles from OMG, IY, and Tenchi as well. They were all created in the same manner, and it's not well suited to the wikipedia. First off, they contain way too many pictures and (some of them) seem to only exist because an infobox was able to be created for the article. But, I will not be mean to the information and I will push for a SUPER speedy merge These articles fall under the auspices of the WP:FICTION which give a wonderful steps on how to create such pages. Also, a aticle like Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) contains WAY too many photos and is a definite violation of the fair use policy. It needs a lot of trimming regardless of the outcome of this debate. I would vote to Delete the Kiddy Grade Infobox and navigation templates, if I could. [Note: this comment added by Kunzite]
  • I also mistakenly removed a prod template from the minor non-human chars article.. It, however, would be best to list it with these articles. [Note: this comment added by Kunzite]
  • There are a lot of Anime and manga character articles that need to be cleaned up and merged. (Though there will be some fights on certain series.) Perhaps, I should nominate as a ACOTW. --Kunzite 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYES.. It should be merged into a list of characters. If, after the article is merged into that list, there is a decent ammount of information, a summary should be left on the character's page and the article should be moved to its own page. The Keiichi article doesn't have much substance right now.. It's a lot better than some of the other one paragraph, two sentence, fluff that exists for some of the other OMG articles. Secondly, you're over stating the character's importance he's appeared in a lot of episodes, but only one franchise. The case could be made per WP:FICTION that he deserves his own article because he appears in an OVA, the TV series, and the manga of the same exact series, but that's stretching it a bit.
I have told you this before, and I will tell it to you again: there are more benefits from merging these articles than keeping them seperate. The first and foremost is that they reduce the number of pages that need to be monitered to ensure that changes are made correctly and that no vandalism is occouring. They also make the articles easier to navigate and provide more succinct articles without the need to repeat the same information over and over and over. --Kunzite 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied- A7 --Pilotguy (roger that) 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avtar Chana[edit]

Vanity. Speedy delete as nominator. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Microsoft Windows 64-bit applications[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and that's all this article will likely ever be. -/- Warren 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Corvino[edit]

Smells like vanity page. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I've removed the entire essay. He is still notable and verifiable. Wjhonson 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added his works from his resume, so you can see that he has print publications. Wjhonson 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Keep and expand this is the wrong article to be listing for deletion. A quick search of Amazon indicates that Corvino has been genuinely published quite a few times. The article that should be AFD'd is John Corvino on Homosexuality, for reasons described at Talk:John Corvino on Homosexuality. (Although I must say, this is an interesting response to an edit war.) --Ptkfgs 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um what are you talking about? I created *this* article from scratch. This article on John Corvino is not the article on John's view of homosexuality or anything else. And *I* only created two articles, AND only recently, and in reponse to an edit war on Homosexuality not anything else. To the closing editor, please note, that almost every comment above is referring to a different article than this article. I wonder if people even read what they write. At any rate, John posted a note on my talk page, and I've added that notability claim. "He has addressed over 100 university audiences" (see my talk). That's above the bar for notability. Wjhonson 22:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can view the two links I posted above and compare them. They are practically identical. The closing admin can review the deleted articles from the earlier AFD and compare that text. Fan-1967 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confused about what article this AfD is about. This Afd is about the current John Corvino article, not any old historic article which no longer exists, and certainly not about some other article, which should have it's own unique AfD. It is the current article that I wrote from scratch. I have already stated several times, that the article on his view on homosexuality was cut from the edit war on Homosexuality. Obviously I did not write that. That article no longer exists in this article. Hope thats clear now. Wjhonson 06:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Szwarc[edit]

non-notable bureaucrat (chief administrative officer) in sub-provincial (Region of Peel, Ontario) government JChap (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Johnson[edit]

Seems to be a character on a soap opera that may or may not exist. In limited Googling, I haven't really found this term in use anywhere. The sources mentioned in the article don't seem to mention the term "Unknown Johnson" at all. Delete per those reasons. Wickethewok 23:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: no consensus for deletion, but unanimous consensus that these should not exist as separate articles, so all redirected to Demon Beast (Kirby series), and whoever wishes to do a merge can go into the history. Note that merge consensuses made at AfD are not binding and it is up to those supporting merge to watchlist the redirects if they don't want them reverted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Beast (Kirby series)[edit]

Doing a bundle deletion of articles that could basically either be a single article, or just removed altogether for being fairly unnotable, episodic enemies in the anime. Half of the listed characters are also nominated for deletion, mostly for fancruft, and the fact some of the monsters appear for about 30 seconds at the end of an episode (as reflected by the fact some of them don't even have -names-). Not to point fingers, but to sum it up, most of these articles are made by Kirbyfan103, and include fact and fiction to make paragraphs of what could basically be a two to three sentence summation in a single article. --ArrEmmDee 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Added 20:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Haunted House Ghosts (Kirby)
  • Noseman (Kirby)
  • Hardy (Kirby)
  • Belly Buster (Kirby)
  • Max Flexer
  • Cold Virus (Kirby)
  • Susshi (Kirby)
  • Cobgoblin (Kirby)
  • Denjaa (Kirby)
  • Windwhipper (Kirby)
  • Delivery Man (Kirby)
  • Mole (Kirby)
  • Dedede Stone
  • Dedede Doll
  • Martial Arts All-Stars (Kirby)



  • Basically 80 percent of the links in the article are included. While some stuff would be probably better off merged not that TheFarix mentioned it, things like 'Debt Collector Ghost' and Unnamed Monster Spirits (Kirby) are just absurd. Sorry I haven't listed them all of, there's just like, too many of them. --ArrEmmDee 21:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per Kunzite's listing. - Wickning1 16:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anime cruft + list cruft = delete the cruft! Cheesehead 1980 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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