< June 14 June 16 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

June 15[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Sango123 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wi-Fi[edit]

How many internet-related articles are we going to have? Not this one, at least. --XSSX 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. No consensus - keep. (See below for details) --HappyCamper 15:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Liz shaw (with a lower case "s") and Liz Shaw NZ[edit]

Was first deleted before by me, but subsequently restored by me as well. There is sufficient content in here that probably should not have been speedily deleted, but I suspect this is not a notable subject and worthy of deletion. Would very much like a second opinion. Thanks very much! HappyCamper 05:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC) -- 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC): I added the other link to Liz Shaw NZ. Wikipedia shouldn't need two pages on this person? Perhaps I should notify the anonymous IP not to paste two copies of the article in Wikipedia. However, I think the reason why two pages exist is because I deleted one, and the IP created the other, and this sort of went back and forth... --HappyCamper 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to the recent surge of vandalism to Liz shaw, I have protected both pages from being edited during this AfD process. The images used in both articles were deleted because they were not substantiated as material compatible with the GFDL. --HappyCamper 00:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think New Zealanders are going to have to make the call on this. Is there a New Zealander project to discuss this on? Zoe 06:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. I initially speedied it, but in retrospect it was too rash of a decision. Better to let vfd dialogue take over. I don't know if there is a New Zealander Wikipedian group. --HappyCamper 06:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is - one of the more active Country-specific WikiProjects, too, complete with portal. But I digress. FWIW, as a kiwi, I've never heard of her, but that may be just me. Grutness...wha? 08:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness - seeing as you live in Dunedin, there is a write up about the Liz Shaw phenomenon in a recent Critic issue. Here's a link to the online version, but I imagine you'll have no trouble finding a copy (although it's really not worth the time) :)[1]--inks 10:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annon Edit; This above point is irrelevant as William Hung has a Wiki entry, for one bad audition he did. And Liz's subsequent publicity led to an invitation to do a porn movie with Ron Jeremy. Liz's publicity, while not on the same scale as William Hung's is still prolific considered New Zealand's size. I support the renaming to "Elizabeth Joan Shaw".

Keep The Liz Shaw Phenomenon is actually quite widespread here in NZ. She is reasonably (in)famous, and has featured on several NZ websites and magazines (including one of the adult variety). With all respect to KJPurscell, she has used her rejection as a springboard to more infamy (the same kind you'd get if you posed with your rejection slips in an erotic fashion). --inks 06:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Now there's a terrifying image. :) --KJPurscell 18:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
She sounds more notable than Angelyne.  :) Zoe 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Annon: She is notorious amongst the student and youth pop of NZ but Dr Who would have arguably more world-wide relevance. However this does not mean the New Zealand Liz Shaw is not worth a wiki.

  • *Sniff* Suspicion is character assasination, not proof! :) I would use www.google.co.nz and repeat your search. Disambig, but it should be kept in some form.--inks 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless she's suddenly become a town, that should be Liz Shaw (New Zealand), Robin! I'd agree with making Liz Shaw a dab page though. The good doctor's companion (the first one with the Pertwee Doctor, IIRC) is well known here too. Grutness...wha? 04:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition this topic is also relevant to anyone interested in the effects of popular media on young adults. The "Liz Shaw" phenomenon is a (IMO) facinating look at how far some people will go to get noticed - whether through fame or infamy.
I support namming the topic as Liz Shaw NZ or Liz Shaw (New Zealand) as she is not known as Elizabeth Joan Shaw - as well as a dab page from Liz Shaw to the correct pages for both the "Liz Shaws. I suppose that if the topic WAS to be renamed Elizabeth Joan Shaw that could be handled through a Liz Shaw dab page also - would that mean that the current Liz Shaw page is renamed to Liz Shaw (Dr Who) or similar? Maybe. A topic merge of both the Liz shaw and Liz Shaw NZ entries is an excellent idea.
It's funny how despite having done a few Wikipedia entries and updates that it's a deletion that would actually prompt me to create an account... ;-)
--Crocos 12:10:06, 2005-09-03 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete anyways. TheProject 05:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz videos[edit]

Appears to be spam, links only to one external site, is not a history of Jazz videos or anything Gnewf 00:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Card Location[edit]

Description of "magic trick" allegedly invented by the author of the article. It's earned $500. I'd say "not notable". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) This is true. A mathematical formula, originated in personal research or not, is and stays true. And every card trick is mathematical (or just suggestion). See also WP:RDMisc about it
2) This is fun. My only regret is that ... the article is unreadable! Wikify it and you'll love it. --DLL 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is verifiability, not truth. And there is nothing anywhere that suggests that articles that are "fun" ought to have different standards applied to them. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as attack page on non-notable person, and probably an elaborate hoax at that. - Richardcavell 02:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ingvaldson[edit]

appears to be attack page on high school teacher, has not satisfied WP:NN Marysunshine 01:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easily fails WP:BIO. It's one of those "Just delete it" situations. Adambiswanger1 01:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, regrettably. DS 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undernet Philosophy Channel[edit]

Non-noteworthy Undernet IRC channel. No assertion of notability, no references or citations, etc. after about 45 days of existing; no evidence that it meets WP:WEB. -Silence 01:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, it is not possible to "make an article noteworthy"; an article's topic has to already be noteworthy, and it's our job to make an article comprehensive, high-quality, and unbiased. If an article's topic isn't noteworthy, there's nothing we can do: we have to delete it. If it becomes noteworthy at any point in the future, we can always recreate it. You can also freely transfer all the information on this page to an off-Wikipedia website so it isn't lost. But if the article's not noteworthy, no amount of improving it will do any good; if the article is a noteworthy subject matter, meeting requirements like WP:WEB, then all you need to do is provide reputable citations/references to verify that the content is valid and significant enough. -Silence 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy as utter nonsense. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zandi's Bay, North Carolina[edit]

Ok, this is based off tracking a user who was making odd edits to county pages in north carolina. They created this article after altering numerous pages to include this city, especially noting that it is somehow the seat of Forsyth county. Well, its not. [3]. The page is either a copy or a mutation of another small town census-only article on wikipedia. So far I've been unsuccessful at locating where the article is copied from, it may be randomized, as the sum of the common races is greater than 100%. The image used is Image:NCMap-doton-WinstonSalem.PNG (the actual seat of the county). Also apparently the town is 34% water, with 6.4 out of the 8 sq meters of the entire county being water in this fake town, especially looking at the tiger data. [4] Its an obvious hoax, given what I've seen Kevin_b_er 01:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cliff dwellers handbook[edit]

Essay. The page appears to have been created by the author of a nn book with a similar title. The page is not wikified and has a number of spelling and grammatical errors. FreeKresge 01:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 03:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Optix[edit]

Non-notable semiconductor company. Fails WP:CORP. -- RHaworth 02:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1, multiple non-trivial published works: (industry publications: [5] and [6]. San Jose Newspaper: [7])
Criteria 2, ranking indices: Technology Pioneers award, 2006 and rAVe 2005 Radical Product of the Year Award.
Criteria 3, stock market indices: None - Privately owned company.
The article was poorly written, but the company clearly passes WP:CORP on multiple measures... and that was just skimming for 20 min on google. ---J.S (t|c) 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 90k hits on google for an exact-phrase search of "Silicon Optix." ---J.S (t|c) 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added the sources I listed above, so WP:V is taken care of. Just need to expand the article at this point. ---J.S (t|c) 20:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cool, I will revise my vote when the article is expanded Aeon 18:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is an odd day when a multi-national company that also passes WP:CORP is non-notable. ---J.S (t|c) 21:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaotik Productions[edit]

Company formed in 2006 with two employees. Notable? Two redirects also to be deleted. -- RHaworth 02:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Government Simulation[edit]

No sources, not likely to ever be notable. Check all 3 pages of Google results yourself: [8] Ashibaka tock 02:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SweetIM[edit]

Is nothing more than advertising. It has no encyclopedic value. User:Jmount 02:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep.  RasputinAXP  c 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luton Sixth Form[edit]

On behalf of the Luton Sixth College (of which I am currently a student) this page has been requested to be deleted from this site. It was created without the prior consent of any administrative member of staff, by a student who was put up to it as a simple joke. The college (as I understand it) can reserve their right to not be listed on this encyclopedia if they do not wish to be, certainly not in the mal-constructed, under-written form as the article appears now. It could be considered potentially harmful to the college reputation (refer to the history of the page, vandalism has been cleared for the time being as the deletion process is pursued) if this page remains. A formal addressal will be made to contact the Wikipedia H.Q. over the next few days to request removal, but I have still decided to address this through the 'normal' channels. I think it is very clear that this article does NOT have a place on this encyclopedia.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoreau Bartmann[edit]

Someone else listed this originally, but I'll pick up where he or she left off. This is simply a vanity article on a nn artist. He fetches about 150 results on Google, so it might also be a hoax. AdamBiswanger1 03:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete non-notable, nonsense and may not exist. Not sent to BJAODN as I don't find it funny and it just encourages people to create articles (and make other edits) in the hopes they get put there (search through the Reference Desk\miscellaneous). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His Honorable Chaseton Stewart Hellfire[edit]

Obvious hoax. Claims to be the bastard child of Mafia Don Paul Castellano and 513th in the line of succession to the British throne. Feel free to read through the rest . . . ScottW 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The safest choice is for AfD to run through. Yanksox 02:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oilers/Titans Curse[edit]

This is speculation. There are no references provided. It may be a hoax Delete Mirasmus 02:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtbags[edit]

Contested prod. This is a movie with no significant distribution; it's on IMDB but with only 12 votes for ratings and no reviews. I could find no reviews from real press, and the production company is a music video producer. Bill Zebub is not particularly notable either, but due to his magazine I'm not nominating that article right now. Mangojuicetalk 02:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep.  RasputinAXP  c 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Groove Company[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. No allmusic.com entry, no mention on rollingstone.com, no significant press, and their two albums appear to be self-released. Gamaliel 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second vote.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Money Blog[edit]

The article provides little more than a link to the Mad Money website, and what information it does provide is already available at the Mad Money article---this is all redundant. Charles 02:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, the blog linked to in the article no longer exists as of this morning (it was there when I looked yesterday afternoon). Lord Bodak 12:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not proper to comment on it like this, but please keep in mind that the blog linked to by the article did NOT belong to Jim Cramer and was not related to his show. It was someone's blog to talk about Cramer's picks. There is no "Mad Money Blog" that belongs to Cramer. Lord Bodak 21:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oooooh. Ignore my vote, then. - Kookykman|(t)e 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, Lord Bodak. Given this new research, this article is even more deserving of deletion, it seems to me. ---Charles 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Park - One Stop[edit]

Pure adspam. Richardcavell 02:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge units and structures[edit]

Is a list of units in a game, does not seem really fit for inclusion so taking it here Tawker 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That show was ace. Not that I remember any of it Bwithh 11:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyFavatar[edit]

Advertisment for a blog site Zandarx talk 02:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emo Boy[edit]

Vanity article by tall, dark, and handsome Evan Henderson. If the page is deleted, then Emo Boy will just cease to exist. I can live without him. -- RHaworth 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Roy Williams[edit]

The phrase "Curse of Roy Williams" gets six unique Google hits, four of which are mirrors of this article. No media coverage, and the supposed "curse" has only been around for three years. djrobgordon 03:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Gambit (band)[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no claim of any notability. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rival Joustas[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no claim of notability. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Take-Aways[edit]

Band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. There's a current band of the same name on MySpace, but none of the members were born when this one existed. No AllMusic entry. Very difficult to do a websearch for, but I can't find any matches anywhere with more info. Richfife 03:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Change of Pace[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no claim of notability. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Offer You Can't Refuse[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no claim of notability. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that we have information on the album, this page is the logical place for it. Album pages are also being debated at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oniket_Prantor. Spacepotato 23:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 20:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AnimationMentor[edit]

An online animation course that seems to have no notability. Alexa rank of 583,597. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 20:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Betadot[edit]

Non-notable website; Alexa rank of 248,080. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, parts of the article is not currently independently verifiable. Therefore it will require additional citation to meet the verifiability standard. Once that is corrected, the article would not violate official policy, far as I can tell. Dugwiki 15:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, without independent references, I'm for the article being deleted. Dugwiki 15:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 20:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Elgin Baylor[edit]

Yet another curse made up on WP. 71 Google hits, again, nearly all mirrors. There is a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article which references this page, yet again proving that the media doesn't know how to deal with this site. Is it possible this nn internet meme could become notable because some uninformed journalist didn't realize it was an nn internet meme? djrobgordon 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Close, at DRV already, pending DRV outcome. You can't have it both ways, if you want to relist now, withdraw the DRV and wait a decent time (a month is typical) before relisting at AfD. If you want a DRV with a result of delete, don't relist here. If you want a DRV with a result of relist at AfD, you have to let the DRV finish first. I'm surprised that User:WCityMike, who has been using process as a strong argument in the DRV to contest the outcome, would flub up this bit of process this way... --++Lar: t/c 05:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost: The Journey (second nomination)[edit]

(Please see also the current Deletion Review discussion and the previous 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 of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0 for 4 Curse[edit]

131 Google hits, nearly all of which are mirrors or links on other WP pages. No sources. The article doesn't even make clear what the curse is. djrobgordon 03:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep.  RasputinAXP  c 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annalena McAfee[edit]

Only claim of notability seems to be her participation as a judge for the Orange Prize for Fiction. 708 Google hits. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I considered changing my vote based on the recent comments, but the only thing I see are further assertions and I only respond to evidence. It is incumbent on the editor (or in extension on those voting for keep) to establish notability rather than assert or assume it, or pass the burden on the nominator. ~ trialsanderrors 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the article did establish notability by stating that she was an editor of the Guardian, a writer of six books, and a judge for the Orange Prize. Each keep vote has agreed that these are reasonable examples of notability. Indeed, I've crossed out "search" above: it's true that one shouldn't have to search for notability before nominating, but the notability here was right there in the artcile. — 199 15:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of King Clancy[edit]

Another curse that's complete made-up nonsense. BoojiBoy 04:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is canadian_bacon's first edit. --djrobgordon 05:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Allen Breon[edit]

"Student leader" at Bucknell; not notable for our purposes, even if he is "known for his social skills with women." NawlinWiki 04:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --bainer (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The White Rose Society (website)[edit]

Closer's notes
This debate was split evenly down the middle numerically. However the main argument for keeping the article was that it was supposedly a revenge nomination for another article that was deleted, whereas the main argument for deleting the article was that it did not meet WP:WEB. When the acrimony has subsided, the result of this debate may be cited as trending towards delete.

In determining the final consensus, the comments of unregistered users were disregarded.

Does not meet WP:WEB, not notable, low Alexa ranking, no recent news, doesn't even get pushes from left-wing commentators, and the site owner himself, Ben Burch, has indicated that he would like the page deleted (though he claims to be neutral about it) Jinxmchue 04:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just make sure you troll for votes over on DU like you did the last time, Ben. Yeah. Real "neutral." Jinxmchue 04:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you'd never troll over on any of your boards, right? BenBurch 04:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you two want to have a personal argument, do it on your talk pages, not here. Every petty comment makes this nom look more and more like it was made in bad faith. This nom might have been done just to make a point, if comments in the AfD for Protest Warrior are any indication. --djrobgordon 04:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain it *was* done to make a point, but I'm happy to let other Wiki editors pass judgement on the worth of this entry on its merits. BenBurch 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "faith" of my nom is no different than the "faith" of Ben's noms. Make of that (and Ben) what you will. Jinxmchue 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jinxmchue, read WP:CIVIL and at least try to follow it.--Isotope23 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. And I will politely ask Ben to do the same. Jinxmchue 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did you expect?

You have a febrile, partisan attack dog, i.e. Burcher, who doesn't even make a pretense of intellectual honesty.

72.68.190.24 21:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ben Burch brought this on himself for alleging that media attention and Alexa traffic reports were needed for a encylopedic article. His pure hypocrisy is the main reason why this article is being subjected to deletion. I can tell that he is trying to act like the 'nice guy' or 'neutral' on this article. Also, I think that it was he that started the deletion process for the CU article, unless I am mistaken, and his website has a dismal traffic report compared to CU. I think that this article could be deleted based on WP:Web. Jdh 24 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burch is an habitual liar.

Exhibit A:

http://liberalunderground.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=60876&subForumID=208875&action=viewTopic&commentID=7355303&topicPage=

Exhibit B:

http://liberalunderground.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=60876&subForumID=197875&action=viewTopic&commentID=6893043&topicPage=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.190.24 (talk • contribs)

In light of "Exhibit B", I now change my vote to Delete. Jdh 24 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the freak who's obsessed with S&M and furries.

That comment would be more fairly directed at The Fister, IMHO.

In all seriousness, why haven't there been any consequences for Burch's malicious behavior?

I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.

72.82.111.224 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caught in multiple lies.

Burch is a habitual prevaricator and a blatant hypocrite.

Bottom of the barrel Alexa ranking-using Burch's own hypocritical standards, not mine-no noteworthy mentions of his site outside of the DU hive-and perhaps AAR/leftbot talk show hosts that are consistently rated at the bottom in most objective Arbitron measurements-and an unwillingness to broach anything but the most anemic argument in its defense.

This is an open and shut case for deletion, IMHO.

71.125.253.62 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motivated by the fact that this site is not notable in any way, even among hard core leftists, most of whom are unaware of it.

It gets less traffic-in aggregate, and by a large margin-than the sites that Burch has nominated-out of spite-for deletion.

71.125.253.62 18:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that it is a vendetta? And I don't think you KNOW any hardcore leftists! 82.245.188.240 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.

Yes, you hardly ever run into the type in this city.

Please, don't pontificate on things you know nothing about.

This is not a vendetta.

It was simply done in order to illustrate the fact that Burch, despite the misleading name of his unpopular website, is every bit the goose-stepping, book-burning Nazi.

He poses as an advocate of free speech, and yet attempts to crush any point of view that is contrary to his, which is probably why he fits in so well at the DU hive.

71.125.253.62 19:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion.

Statistics from Alexa supporting that decision:

Traffic Rank for whiterosesociety.org: 177,352

Traffic Rank for whiterosesociety.org: 177,352 (29,015)

Speed: Average (60% of sites are faster), Avg Load Time: 2.1 Seconds (what's this?)

Other sites that link to this site: 148

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=www.whiterosesociety.org%2F&url=www.whiterosesociety.org%2F

Also, pledge drives that last in excess of half a year, an indication that even its most vociferous supporters do not see a compelling need for its presence on the Internet.

71.125.253.62 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up to $1,887.35 now... BenBurch 23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with the unsubstantiated, libelous accusations.

So typical of you.

If you want to prove that I am multiple people, then I suggest you do so, Burch.

Either that, or retract your pathetic allegation now.

71.125.247.127 23:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations? I asked a question about an anonymous dumbfuck who was spamming this discussion... If you don't want to have people doubt if you are one person or many, create a user name like a real human being rather than being an anonymous coward. BenBurch 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is the coward it's you, you corpulent, obsessive freak of nature.

Running to your leftbot hives, stirring up your fellow leftist imbeciles to gin up fake votes against websites that dwarf the traffic-and media recognition-of you and your pathetic site.

I'm not justifying myself to a goose-stepping, dissembling, transparently hypocritical asshole like you.

Sorry Fister, I'm simply not giving you the satisfaction.

BTW, how is that PW purge going?

Heh, heh.

71.125.247.127 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, does "dumbfuck" fall under the rubric of "personal attacks?"

I'm curious, will Burch receive the same warnings that I have received, or is a double standard in effect?

Liberal nutbars can slime and slander whoever they feel like, but conservatives can't reply in kind...?

71.125.247.127 00:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the description of the website, verbatim:

Mmp3 audio archive of talk shows criticizing George W. Bush.

There are hundreds-if not thousands-of websites that host either audio files, or video files, or columns criticizing President Bush. I don't think anyone can seriously assert that Wikipedia should maintain entries on each and every website that has content that criticizes President Bush.

The only noteworthy talk show host listed on the main page of his site is Randi Rhodes, who is heard on a scant 33 terrestrial radio stations, and, according to a 2005 Talkers magazine survey, was not even listed among the top 25 syndicated talk show hosts in the country.

71.125.253.61 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, No contracts involved. I archive shows by permission, and the show hosts mention the archives because they want to. Some do it every show every day. Others, such as Randi Rhodes do it so infrequently that I get emails from my fans telling me that she did it. But I am still myself unsure of the encyclopedic notability of this page. White Rose I have no doubt is notable; I have 15,000 hours of Liberal/Progressive talk radio archived on the site, going back to 2001 for some of the shows, and serve around 17,000 unique people weekly. If I didn't think it was notable and important I wouldn't be doing it. But I am not at all sure if an encyclopedia needs to take note of it. It's not Planck's Constant. It's not Charles Darwin. And you don't have to say that you are going to be fair about this. That is a given BenBurch 02:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "notability" obviously must subtract how we feel about our own work--it deals solely with how the "world" or the community that surrounds the entity thinks about and treats said entity. Crooks and Liars has been around since 2004, it archives audio/video of interest to the left, and it's notable because in the left-wing blogosphere, one trips over all the references to it. However, I don't notice this same kind of tripping over WRS mentions. I think that necessarily, for a website to have notability, it must be deemed important by its most natural constituency, and for WRS, that is the same (or very similar) constituency as that for Crooks and Liars. Also, just because an entity acts as a great voluminous resource doesn't automatically make it notable--notability is whether a lot of people, especially influential (well, notable) people commonly refer to this resource as some kind of "must-see". I guess I'm just going to have to see more evidence of notability... like mentions in mainstream sources--I read above that Randi Rhodes has mentioned it sometimes... if something like this is documented (as in transcript documentation) as a regular occurrence from Rhodes or other notable personalities, I would be inclined to vote at least "weak keep". Links to several transcripts like this would do the trick for me. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 03:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as there are not textual transcripts prepared for any of these shows, that is a tough call. Listen to the last ten minutes of Mike Malloy's show, or Bob Kincaid's show and you'll hear me and the site mentioned by name. Unlike Crooks & Liars, I don't archive "events". They have clips of exceptional things that happen in the video realm. I have a daily archive of nine different shows, also archives of several weekly shows, and never take anything offline. Want to hear what Randi Rhodes said the day that Bush landed on the carrier? It's there. And people do refer to the site when they need to refer to a particular show in their blogging. Drudge mentioned me once over a skit that Randi Rhodes' people played that seemed to imply somebody shooting the President, and I had about 38,000 visits that one day! Here is an lgf mention of the same event; [14] But honestly I am not going to defend White Rose's page here because I don't really know why White Rose, or DU, or FR, or CU, or PW belong in an encyclopedia. They are all already in google and yahoo and dogpile... Isn't that enough? BenBurch 03:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Last ten minutes" sounds like an advertisement, Ben. I see no mention of you in the Drudge text quoted on LGF (and that page is conveniently gone from Drudge, so no way to verify if LGF quoted the whole thing, but Charles does quote things entirely). And it's obvious you ARE defending White Rose's entry, Ben. Why else would you be posting all this information? It makes no sense to waste all this time and energy for something you don't even think should be on Wiki. Jinxmchue 16:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here is the clip in question from the most recent Malloy show. As you will hear, it is *credits* not an advert. Malloy Show closing credits 6-16-2006
Alright, I found the Drudge archive of the "mention." It amounts to nothing more than a direct link to the audio file. Absolutely no specific mention of WRS or Ben.[15]
It says "A Randi Rhodes Fan site is offering an mp3 clip of the broadcast." with the link to the site. That is a mention. BenBurch 03:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGF, i.e. Charles Johson, mentions the event-and the Randi Rhodes Show-he does not mention you or your website.

Although I didn't scroll through the entire thread, so it's quite possible that a random poster might have mentioned you or your show, but I highly doubt it.

72.68.163.158 03:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... Check reply #149 where the site is mentioned and the fact that Drudge linked to it.... BenBurch 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be obvious, but Wikipedia is a encyclopedia/reference while those other things are web search engines. Not everything that is notable has a great presence in search engine results. Also, it might be helpful to think in these terms: Would talking about WRS be suitable for a history book with regards to left-wing broadcasts? Does WRS have a significant degree of indispensability to left-wing broadcasting? At any rate, I am not asking for a argumentative defense... just some links to resources. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 03:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, honestly, I don't want to be in the position of defending this entry. Go look at the server stats linked above if you want some idea of how important it is to the people who use it. 17000 unique users in the average week, and that does not include streaming users or users of our usenet postings of every show we archive, or people who go directly to the mp3 directories and skip the html pages. Is it indispensable? Many think so, but I have no particular desire to document that, though I am happy to answer your earnest inquiries as best I can. The best indication of that is that people donate money to me for what they can download from me for free, This is the third fundraiser I've run at the $10,000 level since last September, and we succeeded with the first two, and are well on the way to succeeding with this one. But, honestly, I don't care if White Rose has a Wikipedia entry or not. My log files show me about 200 hits from that page, most of them during this AfD and the last one. Ppeople don't come to White Rose though looking for White Rose! They come to it by looking for Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy, or Thom Hartmann. This entry is likely an appropriate jumping off point for the links on their individual Wiki pages, sort of a disabigualtion, but one that could easily be dispensed by having a direct link in all of those individual places. BenBurch 04:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, fer crying out loud! None of this is relevent, Ben. It has no bearing whatsoever on notability, which is not measured by web hits, fundraisers and downloads. There are literally thousands of pages which should have Wiki entries by those standards, but they don't because they are not notable. Also, I've noticed you have added links to WRS on the Wiki pages for Jay Marvin [16], Randi Rhodes[17] and Mike Malloy[18] within the last 24 hours. And the links are to your front page, not their individual archives on WRS. Trying to drum up some notability, are we? Jinxmchue 15:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on what specifically was added to the subject article, but it is all right to update an article while being considered for Afd, except of course to remove the Afd tag. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood what I was looking at re: updates. But what Ben Burch did with external links is perfectly fine. His site is notable enough for an external link in said articles, as his site naturally extends knowledge about those subjects. Perfectly legit. But for this article, there is a different standard... see my changed vote above. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You convinced me, Steve. Changed my vote too. BenBurch 19:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be nice.


72.68.163.158 03:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this determination should be based upon this website's notability within the far-left Web community.

Even using that criterion it fails miserably.

Compare the amount of sites that link to the WRS-a little over a hundred-to the number that link to more popular leftist, vehemently anti-Bush websites, e.g. Bartcop, which has over 800 sites that link to it, or Common Dreams, which has over eight thousand sites that link to it.

72.68.163.158 04:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dismal, and in a tailspin.

By Burch's own parochial standards it does not meet even de minimus qualifications for a Wikipedia entry.

72.68.163.158 06:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe we understand your position. No need to keep restating it over and over and over again. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 14:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply trying to elicit a credible response from Burch.

He still hasn't justified the inclusion of his extremely obscure organization in Wikipedia on any grounds, other than self-interest.

It is an advertisement, and per Wikipedia guidelines, should be deleted.

72.68.172.20 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you say may or may not be true. But it is not Ben Burch's job to defend the subject of a Wikipedia article that he happens to run. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please humor us and learn how to format your comments, Wikipedia-style. It will lend gravitas to your position. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Wikipedia regular.

Hence, any formatting irregularities.

Although, I don't see how my lack of familiarity with afd discussions-or even Wikipedia in general-bears directly upon the noteworthiness of this entry, or the substance of my argument.

It should also be noted that if it is not his job to defend this entry then he should cease to defend it.

Otherwise, it simply lends credence to my assertion that this is an advert.

Also, I'd like to point out that Burch's claim that a Conservative Underground user created this entry is a blatant, and quite self-serving, falsehood.

If his purported enemies did create an entry on his organization-a dubious claim on its face-they certainly would not have written one that has a favorable, or even neutral, tone.

My two cents.

72.68.172.20 18:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long would it take to learn Wikipedia formatting? About two minutes. Please realize this discussion is not just about our positions, but also that they are formatted in a manner that most people can follow. If you cannot present your positions clearly, you cannot expect others to be able to understand the discussion as a whole. Your response here indicates a lack of deference to the Wikipedia and our usual ways of discussing matters. That doesn't help your position. It hurts it.
Further, just because it is not his job to defend the subject of this article doesn't mean he can't. However, I do believe it is a conflict of interest for someone who originally wrote or heavily contributed to the article under Afd to vote on its deletion. And that also goes for someone who owns the entity that is described by the article. I believe administrators discount or ignore such votes. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 17:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Burch has not come forward with any evidence to demonstrate that "many" believe his website to be an "indispensable" resource, nor has his claim that LGF, i.e. Charles Johnson, not a user on that website, mentioned him or his website been born out.

72.68.172.20 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted that a majority voted in favor of deletion the last go-round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_White_Rose_Society_%28website%29

Much the same as in Burch's transparently partisan attempt to delete Conservative Underground.

The only difference being that in the former the decision of the majority was ignored, and this entry retained for some inexplicable reason.

Tell ANOTHER lie. CU was deleted in a process I did not participate in. You can lie about it all you like of course... BenBurch 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that more than just a majority is required for an article to be deleted. Here's another area where learning about how the Wikipedia works could prove useful for you, Anonymous One. It requires a super-majority of what I would call "non-conflicted" votes, that is, votes that aren't sockpuppets, and votes that have no conflict of interest. Also, I think admins look at whether something has been renominated too soon after its previous nomination--if it is too soon, the result here may be possibly voided. This is all my understanding, of course, as I am not an administrator (at this time, heh). —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 17:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

72.68.191.165 21:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turnabout is fair play.

If Wikipedia wants to address the legitimate issues raised by its detractors it needs to ensure that avowed partisans, such as Mr. Burch, have no role to play-whatsoever and under any circumstances-in the moderation or deletion process.

72.68.187.150 01:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently did not notice the Wiki admin-I believe that's what they're called here-who voted to delete, upon further reflection.

Or the other (liberal) Wiki users who voted to delete.

And yes, that vituperative, loutish fellow who uses the name Ben Burch is actually Ben Burch in real life.

Perhaps you should consider that, and reflect upon what it says about the administrative controls in place at this website.

Food for thought?

72.68.187.150 02:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anonymous Coward, I saw that StevieTheMan changed his vote; For reasons having to do with whether this page belonged in an encyclopedia. And I also saw that Mr. Burch followed suit. He (Mr. Burch) Seems to be an honorable man. You, however seem to be a cowardly sniper. [Vulgar sentence removed. Even I know there's absolutely no need for that here. Jinxmchue 02:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)] 213.59.99.178 02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO.

I'm sure you don't see the irony in that statement.

That would require a few extra brain cells, oui?

Burch is not honorable in any way, shape, or form.

Even as he disclaims ownership of this entry he is feverishly trolling for votes at the DU hive.

BTW, is this anonymous user-who's laced his inarticulate reply with expletives and personal attacks-going to be given a warning, as I have on repeated occasions for much lighter infractions?

This is why Wikipedia's impartiality is open to question, IMHO.

72.68.187.150 02:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I hereby withdraw from this debate.

Too acrimonious, too heated, and not what I use the Internet for.

If you wish, you may remove my "delete" vote.

Whether this article is kept or removed is of little importance to me.

72.68.187.150 02:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my concern is for Wikipedia's intellectual integrity, not whether his website meets notability standards.

I think the same rules should apply across the board, e.g. with respect to CU, PW, and any other organization-be it from the left or the right-which is worthy of an online encyclopedic entry.

72.68.187.150 02:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bet. I believe that. Right. BenBurch 03:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I said that people had to stop commenting on the users and confine their comments to the article in question, that applied to you, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, please understand that being repeatedly lied about has me just a bit cheesed. BenBurch 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have impartial rules. See WP:WEB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete other users' comments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Begging your pardon, but what comment did I delete? If I did it was inadvertent. BenBurch 03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my comment above twice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Mea Culpa! It was unintentional. I edited the whole article in an external editor because the edit window is so hard to work in, and I should have made sure it had not been touched in between. BenBurch 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Successful requests: 305,830
Average successful requests per day: 43,685
Successful requests for pages: 29,298
Average successful requests for pages per day: 4,184
Failed requests: 6,556
Redirected requests: 15
Distinct files requested: 485
Distinct hosts served: 18,724
Corrupt logfile lines: 8,942
Unwanted logfile entries: 10,419,481
Data transferred: 130.66 gigabytes
Average data transferred per day: 18.66 gigabytes BenBurch 20:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted-or moved-my reply.

In all fairness, this is becomeing more of a "talk" page.

71.125.240.18 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the History. An admin did that. Please keep on the specific topic of notability based on facts about the entry or the website was his request. Honor it, please. BenBurch 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, do you want me to break out the numbers on how many people actually listen to those radio hosts who mention your website on a daily basis?

In comparison to very, and even moderately popular talk show hosts?

Aggregate audience, share, etc...?

71.125.240.18 21:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! I've never been able to find them myself. BenBurch 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, liberals were never known for their wit, although I admire your attempts at sarcasm.

Seriously, do you think Mike Malloy is more notable than Al Franken?

To the best of my knowledge no AAR host has distinguished him or herself in the ratings book, but the hosts you highlight are particularly obscure, at least in terms of generating large audiences of devoted listeners.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, among others, all have large numbers of listeners who disagree with their political point of view, which is a testament to their popularity, if nothing else.

Can you assert with any credibility that there is a single radio host you link to who reaches an audience beyond their own narrow political constituency?

71.125.240.18 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers, please? BenBurch 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be patient.

Among all listeners 12+, it was a race to the bottom for AIR AMERICA and WLIB as mid-days went from a 1.6 share during winter 2005 to a 1.0 share winter 2006.

During PM drive, host Randi Rhodes plunged to 27,900 listeners every quarter hour, finishing 25th place in her time slot, down from 60,900 listeners every quarter hour in the fall.

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/04/air-america-radio-wlib-randi-rhodes-al.html

One of the more popular hosts on your page.

In the recent ratings period, Air America in Austin didn't record any significant listeners under 25.

It might be a ratings anomaly, or maybe young liberals are simply listening to music, satellite radio, and podcasts.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2006-03-17/pols_feature.html

71.125.240.18 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread acclaim from the liberal community for world-renowned talk show host Jay Marvin:

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=75270

Widely-acclaimed talk personality Tony Trupiano gets massive media coverage from one of the most widely-cited Marxist, anti-American, radical Kurdish websites on the 'net:

http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=18252&s2=29

71.125.240.18 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specious logic.

The only reason any effort was exerted to delete this entry is because Burch is notorious for squelching any speech that he disagrees with, which led him to nominate CU and PW for deletion.

The controversy has nothing to do with the WRS itself, which is too obscure to merit comment, but rather the jihadist tactics of someone who is neither liberal, nor a supporter of free speech, despite claims to the contrary.

My own opinion is that if this entry is retained it should be merged with the wholly unnecessary Ben Burch Wiki, which even its subject has admitted is not noteworthy enough to keep as a stand-alone article.

71.125.240.18 00:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously a die-hard fan of his-and the shows he's archived-which leads me to believe that your "strong keep" recommendation has very little to do with the merit-or lack thereof-of this article, in my humble estimation.

If this article is to be retained it should not be retained on the basis of adulatory fans, who offer no impartial reasons for retention, unless you consider one's fanship reason enough for a permanent "keep."

71.125.240.18 00:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are no-name hosts.

The most famous being Mike Malloy, who was replaced by the Satellite Sisters on AAR's signature network, the retooled-and much worse, IMO-WLIB.

http://gammablog.com/?cat=52

I'm not saying that Malloy's Wiki should be removed, only that the fact that he refers to Burch-no matter how frequently-does not qualify Burch for a Wikipedia entry.

If Burch were a regular on a show hosted by an even moderately well-known celebrity, e.g. Al Franken, I would render a different opinion.

71.125.240.18 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the very least that should be done, if this entry is to be retained, is to merge the transparent vanity page, re: Ben Burch, with the larger stub on the White Rose Society.

I don't think even Burch himself would object to that course of action.

71.125.240.18 02:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even Ben Burch has not claimed that his website serves "tens of thousands" of people.

Perhaps it has "tens of thousands" of page-views, or has tens of thousands of visitors, however I find it extremely hard to believe that tens of thousands of people are utilizing this resource on a consistent basis.

Outside of Democratic Underground I have not seen it referred to-even in the most oblique way-by an even moderately popular website, let alone, touted by an extremely popular or well-known radio talk show host.

71.125.240.123 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree.

If his case rests upon his association with these hosts-and from what I've observed, it does-don't you think that their popularity-or in this case, unpopularity-among the general public is pertinent to this discussion?

71.125.240.123 04:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone comes up with a reliable source associating him with them in some way other than providing an incidental service, I can't see how. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I was referring to his claim-which I take at face-value-that his website is mentioned "nine times."

Either weekly, or daily.

I forget which.

He hasn't mentioned-to the best of my knowledge-that he's a correspondent for the Mike Malloy Show-which is alluded to in his Wiki-but I presume that he would cite that as another reason to retain this entry.

As I said before, if no consensus can be reached the simplest course of action would-in my opinion-be to simply merge the two Wikis.

Even Ben Burch has not objected to that, based upon his comments with respect to his own Wikipedia entry.

Granted, the notability of this website is a contested issue, but I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that Ben Burch-as an individual-merits an entire encyclopedic entry, even if it is merely a stub.

71.125.240.123 04:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Analysed requests from Sun-06-Nov-2005 06:26 to Mon-19-Jun-2006 01:19 (224.79 days).

(Figures in parentheses refer to the 7-day period ending 19-Jun-2006 01:18).

Yet another unverifiable dump of raw data removed by A Man In Bl♟ck BenBurch 06:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to verify it, A Man In Black, I'll send you the entire log file. It is amazingly large, though. BenBurch 06:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly large is 2,054,289,706 bytes. BenBurch 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing how this data/IPs served info (which isn't sourced to a reliable source, natch) has anything to do with WP:WEB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well, it shows that 274,691 distinct IP addresses accessed the site over the 224 days since the log file was started. And that is not fully inclusive as it misses the servers where most of the binaries are, and the icecast streams. Are distinct IP addresses equivalent to distinct users? Most web sites take them as such. So, somehow, a quarter of a million distinct people found and used the site in that interval. The vast majority of them went after the three Air America hosts; Thom Hartmann, Mike Malloy, and Randi Rhodes. Said content is provided by permission from a well-known and notable entity. Indeed, in the case of Thom Hartmann, I am a contractual publisher of his material and pay a sizable royalty fee for it. But this is not actually Web-Specific content. It is RADIO content, translated into a form that can be hosted on the web. This makes White Rose much more like Live365 than like Drudge Report. Live365 produces no content, but it is notable because it serves so much of the streaming content of others. Likewise, I produce very little content, but WRS is notable because it archives, podcasts, and streams so much of the content of notable entities, and does it for so many people. BenBurch 06:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:WEB? (It is also a mistake to conflate unique IPs with individual users.) Live365 is notable because finding commentary on it in a reliable source is trivially easy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, but White Rose doesn't exactly fall into the categories it pertains to. As to a Reliable Sources? The only press mention that I know of is here; [19] But the web sites for the shows I archive, which are all acceptable primary sources as they are the web sites of established notable business entities do mention or link to White Rose, here are a few; [20] [21] [22] [23] Also there are any number of mentions on established blogs, including bradblog, atrios, takebackthemedia, bartcop, dubyad40.com. Just explore [24] and [25] for MANY such mentions. If that's not enough, then I guess there is not enough, but I'd wager that is more than some other pages well established on wiki have. BenBurch 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, there are no non-trivial mentions from reliable sources (other than advertising the site), the site hasn't won any awards, and the venue issue doesn't really apply. Correct? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the press mention is nontrivial, and it won the Democratic Media Award in 2005 and 2006; http://www.goodwriters.net/dmr2.html and many of the mentions in the google search are to articles written that refer to specific show or specific stream, some of them by political candidates wishing to call attention to themselves for interviews they did on the various shows. BenBurch 07:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That site mentions White Rose in passing as a "liberal talk show site" (and does not elaborate further, making it a trivial reference) and the Goodwriters link seems to just be a link page. Can you provide me with a citation from a RELIABLE SOURCE (not a blog, not a forum) that mentions WRS more than in passing? (Meaning, not "Download our older shows here" or somebody's link page or whatnot.) Without that, WRS is less like a service like Live365 and more like non-notable site that hosts notable primary works, no more noteworthy than a site that hosts pictures of notable paintings or scripts of notable movies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that is the standard no site like mine would qualify. I have politicians refer to the site [26] and lots of the blog mentions are similar to this one [27] the on-aie mentions sound like this [28] And Democratic Media Award HAS a web listing, but that is not the award. BenBurch 07:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no way to source any non-trivial claim this article might make? As far as I can tell, the only verifiable thing this article can claim is "The White Rose Society hosts show X, Y, and Z." There are no-outside, reliable sources even stating that you run it. This is a problem, and this is why we don't have articles on these sorts of minor sites. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Judge Hofheinz[edit]

14 unique hits on Google, 93 total, most of which are from Wikipedia or mirrors. Obviously made-up bollocks. BoojiBoy 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research rapture[edit]

alleged pop culture term, should be transwikied to Wiktionary if kept. Google hits only show the term used casually on blogs, mostly due to one NYT review of Jimmy Carter's novel (review quoted here). Certainly original research at this point, and more of a definition anyway. Marysunshine 04:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, after careful consideration of all comments made below. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Steve Balboni[edit]

Six hits on Google, article is obviously made-up rubbish. Interesting rubbish, but still rubbish (and also fails WP:NOR). BoojiBoy 04:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all "curses" one way or another "made-up." They're not supposed to be cases of "hard journalisism." Curses for the most part are centered on theories and speculation (e.g. some supernatural force) for why certain things happen to a specific person or organization. TMC1982 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Update... I get about 663. All depends on how you search. A few sports magazines have written about this.SallyB 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please to not forget the quotes. BoojiBoy 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using quotes restricst your search too much. There's tons of other variations for the name. Retropunk 14:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as 'CLASS PROJECT ON DESGINING WEWBSITES'. ~~ N (t/c) 17:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Side Family[edit]

Obviously all original research, no verifiability, no evidence of importance, and scant Google results. I was really on the edge of marking this as speedy but decided to see if I'm just uneducated on this topic. -- Omicronpersei8 04:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: No results on Google. -- Omicronpersei8 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm SD'ing this and apologizing for wasting everyone's time. -- Omicronpersei8 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --bainer (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gape shot[edit]

This article is merely a dictonary definition with some related slang definitions and a list of "Movies containing this fetish" and a See also link to Goatse.cx. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of loosely related information, nor a mere collection of links, otherwise nearly any word at all could be added as an article that simply had its definition, some synonyms, and a list of where it can be found in a bunch of books and movies. This article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and not because of the pornography of its content. The article was prodded when it did not contain the list of Movies or the See also link, after which it received support from Starionwolf and was then deleted by Pascal666, who added the list and link. I have notified both of these users on their Talk pages. —Centrx→Talk 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user that most recently vandalized this article also vandalized another, which brought them to my attention and caused me to revert their vandalism to this article, reverting the prod at the same time. Both list and link were previously in the article. --Pascal666 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're searching for the wrong term. As the article says the most popular term is "anal gaping". With 173,000 hits this appears to be quite popular. The articles that actually link inline to this article also use that context. --Pascal666 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only substantial edits to the body since October, 2005 have been adding 'more popularly called "Anal Gaping"' and 'sometimes combined with the internal cumshot' (which are hardly substantial). Most all of the movies were added by a single user whose only edits were this page. Most of the other edits are people adding and deleting external links to pornographic websites, with numerous petty vandalisms thrown in. —Centrx→talk 05:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've always agreed that as long as you can stick the -cruft suffix on something it should be deleted. Endoplasmic reticulum, pure biologycruft. Theodoric the Great, unabashed historycruft. Let's start deleting! Nscheffey(T/C) 10:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, you're not arguing we should keep this article... -GTBacchus(talk) 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight panic[edit]

I'm just completing this abandoned nomination. It should be noted that this topic is already covered at Midnight Panic. djrobgordon 04:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Midnight Panic to the nomination. Sandstein 05:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TEXNHS FLOGA[edit]

Whatever this is, it doesn't appear to be very notable. "TEXNHS FLOGA" gets 2 Google hits, and the Greek name, "Τέχνης Φλόγα", only gets 12. —Khoikhoi 04:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - author request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBox[edit]

This is a non-notable fake console. Originally tagged for speedy deletion (A7 only covers people, so I removed it), the author added ((hangon)), so I assume s/he would oppose PROD too. None of the Googles appear to be related, so delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Just delete it already!! --ASDFGHJKL 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Morgan Wick 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual assistant[edit]

Delete awful spam. Deprodded. I disabled all links by removing http:// - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination in light of the rewrite, now it's a normal stub about an occupation. Thank you, Adam. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete unless a major cleanup is done. Article has been a spam magnet since creation. Dlyons493 Talk 12:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 05:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optimentum Documentimization[edit]

Neologism (only page that shows up in google is he wikipedia page) or some very weird spelling mistakes Koffieyahoo 04:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as recreated nn. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R.E.[edit]

Hoax, was already deleted, recreated, deleted and protected at Ryan Etheridge. This formerly redirected to Ryan Etheridge, but now has the exact text that the article had. Delete and protect Varco 05:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep and rewrite. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZyXEL[edit]

Seems more like an advertisement then anything else Missvain 05:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to The Toasters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DLTBGYD[edit]

An AfD nomination by an anon, who obviously couldn't complete the nom. Is it Wiktionary-worthy? If not, delete. TheProject 05:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Environmental Technology & Management[edit]

Non-notable group; only one unique Google hit, getm.org itself. No evidence of third-party coverage. Melchoir 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realjuggahos.com[edit]

Website spam, de-prodded Koffieyahoo 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete non notable group. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCW Fantasy Wrestling[edit]

WP:WEB WP:VAIN 5 hits in Google, article apparently posted by operator of web site. John Nagle 06:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article promotes a "fantasy wrestling league" which isn't even active yet. "prod" was deleted, so we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 06:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, default action is to merge with Scientology versus the Internet, so I'll put up the merge tags. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unfunny Truth[edit]

Speedy candidate contested by article creator. The article concerns an obscure YTMND page. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 06:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio and redirect to Minnesota Timberwolves. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch (mascot)[edit]

Mascots don't rate an encyclopedic article; this information can go straight into the franchise article; original author removed the SD tag, so I posted it here for consideration. Yay team. Rklawton 07:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete non notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tank 513[edit]

Article contains apparent vanity and original research in addition to questionable fulfillment of notability criterium Wes! &#149; Tc 07:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is already up for speedy deletion, but another editor insists on having this afd. It probably will be deleted before this is concluded. Thetruthbelow 07:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the assumption the another editor is me. I do not insist on having this afd, I insist that the AfD notice is not blanked or removed from the page during the AfD discussion. Even if it seems to meet the grounds for speedy deletion.--blue520 08:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Omicronpersei8 08:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (second nomination)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus tending towards keep. --bainer (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of institutions granting degrees in cognitive science[edit]

Seems like listcruft to me, somewhat barred per WP:NOT (though I could see where this might be useful). Aren't there books on such topics? The summary indicates it was prodded, which the creator didn't understand, so I explained it to him, but he deleted that as "unuseful". Go figure. Chaser T 08:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, no. Let's say, for some reason, somebody was searching WP for cognitive science degrees. They wouldn't go to a college's page, scroll to the bottom, and happen to see that a college grants said degree. More likely, somebody would read the cognitive science page and notice the "see also" link. -- Kicking222 20:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirected to Concierge. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concierge service[edit]

No need to have this - we already have Concierge. I tried to make a (rather unimportant) redirect from it several times, but a user constantly changes the redirect into the article containing an advertisement for his service. So I think that this should be deleted as not useful and misused for spamming purposes. Ioannes Pragensis 08:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Game[edit]

Website that shows no sign of meeting WP:WEB. Deprodded by page creator without comment. Delete --Pak21 08:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free-to-play[edit]

Can be replaced with freeware, shareware or simply the text "free to play". Only used by 7 articles. See the talk page for details. – Andreas Blixt ☺ 09:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Ben[edit]

Appears to be a NN local TV sitcom. Can't find anything relevant on Google. No real assertion of notability other than the claim that it's a "hit". Deprodded by author with explaination "it is a local hit, as it airs on a UHF network, and is only known to some(but is still a hit among those who know it)" given in edit summary. Matt Eason 10:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yo sucka, your name is "JustBenCrew", so why should we take you seriously again? Danny Lilithborne 22:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia articles must be on subjects that are notable. If you can show that Just Ben is "known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact", then please let us know. I would also urge you to take a look at WP:AUTO, which deals with writing articles on subjects you're personally involved with. Matt Eason 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If Wikipedia articles shouldn't apply to a narrow field of people, delete your articles on hardcore, punk rock, hip hop, and everything that applies. This isn't similar to another hoax featuring Ben, this isn't even a hoax. We will have an episode uploaded and linked within a couple days. Maybe that will change your opinions.JustBenCrew2 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think seeing an episode will change anyone's opinions. We're not just looking for proof that it exists. We're looking for proof that it exists and is notable, and no-one's been able to provide that yet. Matt Eason 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niggerchanovsky[edit]

Neologism. Was "prod"'d in the past but is back again. Francs2000 11:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is valuable supplemental reading on the topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.116.115 (talk • contribs)

And Kicking222, thank you for logically and throughly presenting your opinion without bring any emotional or abrasive feelings; all of your comments were, in general, necessary to the situation and really made this yet another pleasant experience on Wikipedia by providing even more proof of the care and understanding of the many users here (stupid stupid stupid? whoops!). I see you've created an article for Dan Gutman and Splashdown_(band); since I do not see how either one of those articles are important (they both seem more like promotional pieces for small-time things that I'm willing to bet don't affect a majority of lives out there; tsk tsk tsk, Wikipedia is not a soapbox!), I'll nominate those for deletion too. [/sarcasm]
I'm not trying to be militant, but understand where I come from. Sudden curiousity strikes and I'm reading the T9 article - I link over to iTap, and I see my entry in "See also" - except it's not there... A little research later, and I feel like it's important enough to include; I guess if I can create an entire world in my head and sell it to people either in the form of religion (s'up Scientology?) or fictional novels (s'up The Lord of the Rings), and get more than a hundred people store it in their memory banks (not to mention take up ALL THAT WIKIPEDIA SPACE - have you seen some of the fictional tangents these LOTR worlds have taken? Heck, just look at the Halo storyline...) then it stands as legitimate Wiki material...
I just added like 4kb? of relevant, true fact (at least the first half), and all the people I've shown it to have appreciated it. *shrug* Am I really taxing the servers with this info? I mean, it's SUCH A HUGE ENTRY, and it just doesn't stop getting traffic hits (I better stop typing in all-caps, that adds to the size of a wiki article too, doesn't it?)... If so, point me to that paypal thing again and I'll throw $5 towards the server fees. Sorry I'm new to the scene and can't do all the fancy-pants link redirecting or image-inclusion, or understand the "status-quo" of Wikipedia, but more and more this project feels like another elite forum... you guys spend so much time on here, make your self fancy little icons, a nice user page, this and that about counter-vandalism, multiple languages, and cowbells...and suddenly you guys are the newest cyber-frat. And little guys like me might get our articles shat on...
Ha, I wrote about 10x's more defending the damn article than I did about the article itself.
P.S. Please defend the existence of these articles (List of high school dropouts, Government cheese) --- MeNext 16:36 ET, 15 June 2006
Thanks for the reply! I'll try and explain why it's up for deletion: it doesn't have any sources with reliability. That is, anyone can add entries to Urban Dictionary, and that's the closest this article has to a source that someone else can go back and check up on. That means there's no way that we can test if this is a hoax or not without getting a phone with iTap ourselves, and no source for any of the speculation that comes after it about why it's there. That's just not acceptable for an encyclopedia. This is not to say that it doesn't have a place, but it's a big Internet, and it is already on Urban Dictionary (which deals with these kind of things). As for comparing it to other articles, I agree, I don't think the enormous effort that goes into some pop culture stuff is useful at all, but it's sourced and easily verifiable from written sources, which is important under Wikipedia policy (the three big ones at WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV). It may seem arbitrary, but it's running on that fundamental principle that any additions need to be credibly sourced. Ziggurat 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

It feels weird to be AFDing such an old article, but this is a pure dictdef, and I don't see how it could be expanded into a proper article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy TV[edit]

Non-notable television show online. Google results of about 360. Was prodded and someone had added a prod2, but it was removed b an anon IP. Metros232 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XboxHardcore[edit]

non notable website, as per WP:WEB Xorkl000 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 02:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations[edit]

Not noteworthy. A small handful of people want to make an issue of a nonissue. [32] [33] George 12:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then George 18:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to make this clear. The only source for this "controversial issue" listed in the article is the Guardian newspaper. Everything else is research. there are no references to who is claiming this is a controversy except the guardian, which has a history of villifying JW's. There are websites which exaggerate this issue (see my link 1 above) but they mostly mirror each other and all source the Guardian.George 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but are you implying that the animosity between Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations does not exist? Because seriously, it takes about fifteen seconds on Google to find resources that make it blatantly clear that it does exist. When I do a Google search for "Jehovah's Witnesses" "United Nations", I get over 96 000 hits, and the ones that I come across first are all about this issue on one level or another. The 1963 Watchtover Resolution against joining the United Nations is all over the web. Pointing out that the animosity exists is not original research. That said, if you have issues with the article itself, if you feel that it suffers from POV problems or some other problems, feel free to improve it. But to say that this issue is not noteworthy is just plaing wrong. If what the web sez is correct (and I see no reason to assume that it's not), the resolution was adopted at all 24 assemblies, by a grand total of 454,977 conventioners. That's almost half a million people from a single religion taking an official stand that the UN sucks. How is that not noteworthy?
Also, the recent edits on this article kind of worry me. To be honest, I have some trouble following the changes, because as far as clearly written articles go, this one isn't... but I'm a little concerned that pretty passionate people are involved with the article, which is often a signal for POV problems to begin.
(Oh, and hey, guys, I also reorganized the votes here just a little bit to make this discussion a little easier to follow -- I hope nobody minds.) -- Captain Disdain 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means clean up the article. My problem is with the fact that the article is about some supposed "controversy" over JW's registering for library access at the UN, not the way they view the UN. IF it was about how JW's view the UN then I would have no problem with it. Also, animosity is not the right word. If JW's held animosity toward the UN they would not state that it goals were admirable though futile. I don't want to get into doctrine on this page. I did succeed in getting some much needed attention on this article so that whatever may happen to it is a consensus action and not that of one or two JW editors (myself included). So feel free to get involved.George 03:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Fair enough. Well, if you feel the article is wrong, by all means fix it. As far as I can tell, the topic is significant enough for inclusion; if it doesn't give the subject matter proper treatment, that's certainly a problem, but in any case, it's not a valid reason for deleting the article. -- Captain Disdain 14:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I/we will change up the article but I am going to wait to see if anyone else has something to say.George 20:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer's winning streak on grass[edit]

Not sure quite what to call this article, but it looks like a delete to me. —Mets501 (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just nominated those two pages and several others for deletion. -Big Smooth 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI all three pages were created by the same user on June 6th and 7th. Yanksox (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greco-Turkish conflicts with Turkish casualties[edit]

I declined to speedy delete this, but nonetheless I feel it should be deleted. It serves no useful purpose other than propaganda. Delete. kingboyk 12:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted on WP:RFD by User:Freakofnurture - see [34] - BigDT 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"TCC"[edit]

This is an acronym for The Casual Courier. I've added TCC to the TCC page but this doesn't deserve it's own page just to direct the reader to The Casual Courier page, it is mainly a list of links, plus it does not conform to any of our naming conventions. Ben W Bell talk 13:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (nothing to merge). bainer (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Gender Gap[edit]

Insufficient context; arbitrary list of 'facts' not suitable for encylopedia article Barrylb 13:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Klowns (Band)[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 13:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete . ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo series[edit]

Prod tag removed so I'm bringing here. Title of article is unrelated to the content. No encyclopedic value. Delete. Hammer Raccoon 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --bainer (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XOL[edit]

I don't claim to know what XOL is, but this is written in first person which is always a bad sign. Delete unless XOL shown to be something notable, and page rewritten. ::Supergolden:: 13:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --bainer (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clanwars[edit]

Closer's notes
In determining the final consensus, the comments of unregistered users, and very new users (RyanKatora and Klaskey) were disregarded.

Online gaming network. No notability claimed. Conscious 13:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


Ive added a bit more content tflst5 10:05---, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. --bainer (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Forums[edit]

Fairly unremarkable article. Really, it's just throwing out words for the reader like 'aspiring writers' and it is like saying "Sports Forums" or "Dating Forums". There are not articles for these. This is an article basically saying that there are forums for people wishing to be writers. It is not worthy enough to be a freestanding article, and I have the feeling that the external links at the bottom are self-promotion. Now, i May be wrong, but that is my gut feeling. Paaerduag 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvein Magazine[edit]

No notability established Barrylb 13:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Bad faith nomination withdrawn. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne[edit]

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a niche product. Absolutely useless on wikipedia and I'll tell you why. No one knows about this game. It is too insignificant to be on wikipedia. I mean, the Adventure Company is barely afloat. This is better served on a company website not wikipedia. it is too insignificant and warrants deletion. Also the prose is so sloppy that it reads horribly. Shaanxiquake 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the nominator has admitted here [35] that he only nominated another article by Paaerduag due to an ongoing conflict with him, saying "the act of nominating it was purely so that Paaerduag's work would be deleted". The same rationale seems to apply here. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:34, 9 January 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 of the debate was: Speedily deleted by User:Kingboyk

Luke and George Points[edit]

This may be a speedy candidate, but I decided to play it safe and prod it instead. One of the editors of the article removed the tag, so I am forced to bring it here. This is possibly a hoax, but even if it is not, it is just something that a couple of kids made up in school one day. Indrian 14:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag because it is unfounded, and rather offensive after spending time creating the article. --Herman238 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwartsforums.com[edit]

Harry Potter forum, created March 2006, claiming 1000 members and 10,000 posts. Is that notable? NawlinWiki 14:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

491 members already now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.77.161.102 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 17 June 2006.

There were 491 members yesterday, and when I checked today there were 505. 14 per day... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.77.161.102 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 June 2006.

Comment: check Wikipedia:Notability (web) --Zoz (t) 14:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile-danciu[edit]

First of all, the article is in German, which I can't really read without resorting to heavy-duty dictionary use, so it's possible that all it needs is some minor translation work. I can make out that it's about a classical guitarist, but the details get hazy. However, the real problem is that the creator's username is also Vasile-danciu, and he also added (a non-working) link to the article under the "Promising guitarists" section in Guitarist. I'm not getting any relevant Google hits here, either. All this kind of points towards a vanity situation covered under CSD:A7, and the only reason I didn't tag the article as such is that I can't quite figure out what it says and I'm going to assume good faith and give all y'all a chance to point out that I'm wrong, since it's possible that I am -- maybe the creator isn't the subject of the article, but just a well-meaning fan. I don't think so, but guess it don't hurt none to be sure. Captain Disdain 14:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Progressive tax. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graduated income tax[edit]

This page covers virtually the same subject as Progressive tax. Paul 14:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AirSitter[edit]

One of several spam articles related to The Casual Courier. It has no meaningful content. If the author would like, the term could be defined in The Casual Courier itself, assuming that article doesn't find itself on the wrong end of an AFD.

For other related articles, please see The Casual Courier, casual courier (afd), "TCC" (afd) (included only for reference, these are NOT a part of this AFD) - BigDT 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Access Energy Transformation[edit]

Stumbled across this while doing disambig link repair. I don't believe it is notable, or contains any content worth merging. At the end of the article it states that the practice is limited to under 1000 adherants, and consists of a guy flying around doing presentations. Non-notable. Aguerriero (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam/Heaven[edit]

Speedy delete Article is hard to understand and has no connection to Vietnam at all, i assume its on about a band and a cd and also looks non notable. Article makes no refernce to who Heaven is and also looks like its just been copied. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 15:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changed my vote as a user has: wikified and renamed. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 19:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Lazzaro[edit]

Independent candidate for local office, nonnotable unless he wins, other activities aren't significant enough NawlinWiki 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vs. The Earth[edit]

nn band, unsigned; author attempts to demonstrate notability, but the section looks really weak. Rklawton 16:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Felix klaemont[edit]

Vanity page of a nn musician. Speedy del. contested, so AfD Ioannes Pragensis 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WEBpackaging[edit]

WP:CORP; SPAM; Original (noob) author removed the SD tag, so we'll just try it this way. Rklawton 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge with formation skydiving. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16-way[edit]

Definition. If it's important enough to be kept, I'd think it could go into the formation skydiving article that's currently rather empty itself. fuzzy510 23:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Computerjoe's talk 16:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fedynsky[edit]

Non-notable person, either redirect to Cleveland Ukrainian Museum or delete. Chipka 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... isn't the "Wikipedia is not google argument" usually a pro-deletion argument? Bwithh 19:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep and nomination withdrawn. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Angus Turbayne[edit]

Claim to fame is that he "won a bronze medal for bookbinding design at the 1900 Paris exposition." NN in my opinion. NawlinWiki 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete and protect — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape: N0valyfe[edit]

Non-notable RuneScape player. Speedy deleted several times; I'm trying to AGF and assume there is a slim possibility this person could be notable. Fang Aili talk 16:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faqqly[edit]

Deprodded w/o explanation. Original tag was non-notable (about 300 G-hits) and with no real assertions of notability. Curiously, now has 1500 G-hits, but still nothing to establish notability. Chaser T 16:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YUVA foundations[edit]

NN organization. Marked as a speedy, but I don't really think it is - there's at least a shade of a claim to notability. ~~ N (t/c) 17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it could be built up, however it would have to be renamed, and all the content removed. May as well delete it. Sfacets 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete and redirect to terrorist terrorism (double redirect). Redirects are cheap. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrist[edit]

The overwhelming majority of g-hits are a misspelling (intentional or unintentional) of "terrorist". According to the talk page, in 2004, there was a consensus to delete (although the deletion log has nothing for this article unless I'm missing something). The article is half about an environmental neologism (terra + ist) and half about the misspelling of terrorism (how can a misspelling be notable?) It even includes a nice George W Bush joke for good measure. BigDT 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math (state)[edit]

Complete Hoax. Contains links to user space which imply this is vanity. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwan dynasty[edit]

Probable hoax material. A google search gives a lot of references but none relevant to the written article. A complete rewrite or relevant referencing may save it. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 17:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Bailando[edit]

A strongly POV article about a rather marginal dancer who does not seem to fulfill WP:BIO - Google has about 10 hits for "Francisco Bailando" but most of them probably not related to the dancer. The article is constantly reverted by its creator, who is seemingly a member of the Bailando's "cult", and there is probably nobody here who would be able to make a good article from it, because of lack of independent sources about Bailando. So I think that deletion is the best solution. Ioannes Pragensis 17:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Themeing and Themers[edit]

Seems like a non-notable hobby. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilken Diagnostic[edit]

Appears to be original work of Rev. Todd Wilken, who hosts the local radio show Issues etc., (article on AFD as nonnotable). This is nn and WP:OR. NawlinWiki 17:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Rapper Alive[edit]

I don't see this article ever becoming sufficiently encyclopedic. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Union County, South Dakota[edit]

non-encyclopaedic BlueValour 17:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge with Carriacou and Petite Martinique. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carriacou and Petit Martinique[edit]

There's a much more in-depth article already at Carriacou and Petite Martinique. OzLawyer 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Lincoln County, South Dakota[edit]

non-encylopaedic BlueValour 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you the nominator here, or are you a participant in the discussion? Please explain these diffs [40], [41] and your relationship with BlueValour. As a very new user, but active participant in AfD debates, you should be aware that ballot stuffing or other forms of collusion are seriously frowned upon. I would encourage you (and BlueValour) to see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --JJay 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream Muslims Vs. Al-Ahbash[edit]

Completely POV article that doesn't have capability to ever adhere to NPOV standards BhaiSaab talk 17:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That analogy doesn't make sense to me. If Ahmadi, an article on a sect of Islam that is deemed to be infidels by most Muslims, can be kept, then the analogy fits so that Al-Ahbash can stay - not Mainstream Muslims Vs. Al-Ahbash. BhaiSaab talk 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why can't we do that on the Al-Ahbash page? BhaiSaab talk 17:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the above comment: I agree. Merging could be a better idea. --Islamic 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with merging. This article is original research. BhaiSaab talk 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this page is going to be deleted then it should be merged. In other words, it should be kept as it highlights in a nutshell the difference between mainstream Muslims and the Al-Ahbash. And there are plenty of verifiable facts over the internet. All one needs is a little bit of research. McKhan
Then you should cite them. BhaiSaab talk 01:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources which were used to complie that list (I didn't compile that list) are already LISTED under the reference section. Indeed, in your point-of-view, they are GENERIC and NON-VERIFIABLE coz you are determined to Sanitize and Islamacize the Al-Ahbash. McKhan
Actually, a lot of it is just copied and pasted. Compare this website. That's copyright violation. BhaiSaab talk 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and start imporving it. Aint' you the "editor" of Wikipeida? Don't you know how to work as a team? The table has been compiled through using lots of sources. McKhan
I will not "improve" an article that's sole purpose is to disparage its subject. BhaiSaab talk 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I will make sure that the content of this article get re-posted again. You are determined to Sanitize and Islamacize the Al-Ahbash by using the Wikipedia Guidelines. I have seen your tactics so far. McKhan
I'll ask politely for you to please stop making personal comments. BhaiSaab talk 03:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you ganged-up on me. You are after most of my edits. You are archiving and editing as you please like my edits are your own blog. You don't even discuss them. You simply go ahead and edit them as per your own discretion. This is blatant harrassment. McKhan
Please feel free to lodge a complaint against me or begin proceedings for an RfC [42]. BhaiSaab talk 03:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't work. People have learned to get away with almost everything on Wikipedia. McKhan
Of course they work. If you can convince them of your allegations, I'll probably get banned. Feel free to continue this discussion on my talk page. BhaiSaab talk 03:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"What goes around, comes around." McKhan


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

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runaways (comics) (story arcs)[edit]

The page is too detailed to be encyclopedic or fair use. If it were significantly trimmed to be fair use it could be merged with Runaways (comics) -- Newt ΨΦ 17:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Although most editors proposed a delete, I am going to change it to a re-direct to Big Brother (UK series 7), per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Precedents. TigerShark 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Adams-Short[edit]

Non notable Big Brother housemate, fancruft. I'd speedy it but I thought it would be better to bring it here just in case. — FireFox 18:02, 15 June '06

Comment: She is in Big Brother, so of course she is going to be in the news and all over the internet (on mostly Big Brother fan sites). This doesn't make her notable. — FireFox 18:13, 15 June '06
The news sources are not obliged to print a story about someone, they do so with their own free will. Yanksox (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This still does not make the article meet WP:BIO. Even after your cleanup, the only notability the article claims is being a 20-year old dance teacher that's been on TV – not notable. — FireFox 18:24, 15 June '06
And she is not the primary subject of many of these external articles - Big Brother is. PJM 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikiproject Big Brother she is notable, read this. Yanksox (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." – how is this applicable to Grace? — FireFox 18:24, 15 June '06
Did you click any one of the links that I supplied? Yanksox (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is why I am saying just because someone is in the news it doesn't make them notable. Big Brother is highly promoted on news sites and other fan sites, so her name is going to crop up here and there, but by no means does this mean she is notable. — FireFox 18:26, 15 June '06
We've been through this quite a few times. Grace is most definitely not notable enough for her own page, she's a gameshow contestant! Budgiekiller 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is really an iffy thing. I am supplying the sources and supplying my rationale for why it should be kept. To be honest, I don't watch TV or really care about celebrity status (except for me :P). I have looked over the policy and in my mind it appears that she fits the profile. You can call this and I'll understand. Yanksox (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict x2. Gah.) Well of course your opinion is all yours, I'm not trying to change your mind or anything. We'll see what everyone else has to say about it anyway :) — FireFox 18:32, 15 June '06
Yep, try this... Budgiekiller 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. ;) PJM 12:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Premium rate AfD phone numbers, anyone? -- 9cds(talk) 12:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime character birthdays[edit]

I recognize that this article has an inprocess tag. I maintain that the underlying concept of this article is what merits it as WP:LC.. additional reasons follow:

ing concept is non-notable

I am a frequent editor of anime articles. I generally like to keep things. This, however, is not worth keeping. --Kunzite 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


S'ok. I usually try to keep an eye on that list, but I hadn't seen this entry. (We often get requests for articles that already exist. Or article requests for a character that's on a character's list page.) I sometimes like to go get a copy of a manga listed on the requests page (usually from unorthodox souces) and then write the article from that. There's also the seiyu request page. (Though you have to check those for notability too. Someone dumped some video game seiyu with only one role in there--I think I marked most of the suspicious ones.) --Kunzite 01:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(After my script-driven vote missed the above comment by Amedyr:) Don't worry, Amedyr, there's absolutely no problem with being bold. It's probably useful, though, to examine WP:AfC requests carefully - I estimate some 75% of requests there are not fit for Wikipedia, per WP:NOT. Sandstein 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Tate Gallery after all useful content (one fact) has been merged. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tate Online[edit]

The Tate's website is no more notable than that of any other museum. None of the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (web) are met. HAM 18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 02:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thiruppugazh[edit]

(({text))} V. Joe 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Sandstein 18:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC): I think the deletion rationale that V. Joe meant to add, now at the top of the article, was:[reply]
Its a prayer, and so without context as to be inherently semi-coherent. I think its a hindu prayer, but other than that, nadda.>
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete as copyvio. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NQcontent Enterprise[edit]

Adcruft about a non-notable product RedRollerskate 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smells of copyvio. - Kookykman|(t)e

Comment It is a copyvio, see http://www.nqcontent.com/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=346 Garion96 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a copyvio, how do we get it speedied? RedRollerskate 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a copyright permission on the talk page. Fan1967 21:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! RedRollerskate 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisting this so it can get more votes. RedRollerskate 13:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery Klassen[edit]

Non-notable. Heck, we don't even have a page for his supposed "genre". Kookykman|(t)e 19:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. TheProject 23:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin The Magician[edit]

Quite a number of google references for "Marvin the Magician", but only a blog seems to refer to these films. Seems NN and bordering on original research Irongargoyle 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 02:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Levițchi[edit]

Non-notable, less than 1,000 Google results. Kookykman|(t)e 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn and Speedy close. --Gurubrahma 05:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtapradhan[edit]

Extremely non-notable, less than 200 Google results, most are WP mirrors. Withdraw nomination, speedy close. Kookykman|(t)e 19:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo-Oxford District Secondary School[edit]

Non-notable schoolcruft, less than 250 Google results. Kookykman|(t)e 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can be "expanded" about this? Why is this school notable, or at all different from other high schools? Does it follow that every single blade of grass in my front lawn should get an article too? - Kookykman|(t)e 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed many times before, but I think there is something unique about every high school. I'm sure that someone halfway famous graduated from there or that they have a unique program of some sort. -- Mwalcoff 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And someone halfway famous graduating from there suddenly makes it notable? Schoolcruft is garbage. We have a very apathetic community if we let you people just keep these worthless articles. - Kookykman|(t)e 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Zajicek[edit]

Unremarkable personage on her own; she's the assistant to someone notable. Also, this reads like self-promotion or a press release, including italicized quotes with no citation, and personal reminscences of her first day on the job! -- Tenebrae 19:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Kookykman|(t)e


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hormonology[edit]

Not an article, but an argument for making one. The creator has twice removed a ((prod)) tag without improving it. See talk:Hormonology. Delete gadfium 19:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Kenya[edit]

A long list of mostly red links. Categories serve far better for this purpose. Just in case someone gets the wrong idea, this nomination has nothing to do with the debate over school notability and only has to do with whether lists or categories are better for this kind of thing. Indrian 19:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiasm sauce[edit]

Possible hoax, no references on google. Somewhat amusing, but definitely NN Irongargoyle 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I know chef lingo, and this isn't part of it. - Kookykman|(t)e

Absence of a reference on Google is not proof of something's non-existence, nor is it likely that "chef lingo" would overlap with that of student cooking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chile Nose Jam (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 June 2006

Even if it's real, it belongs on urban dictionary, not here. --djrobgordon 20:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am entirely aware of the fact that Google's not always the best way to prove that something exists, but I find it a little hard to believe that widely used chef lingo would not surface on any public site on the net and get spotted by Google. As it is, I have no proof that "enthusiasm sauce" is being used anywhere, at all. -- Captain Disdain 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And someone appears to think that the way to refute arguments against the article's deletion is to delete the arguments. Nice idea of "rational debate" there.

To recap and hope that it won't get deleted this time: it's not likely to appear on any recipe sites, since the recipe is "chuck a load of stuff in a saucepan and cook it", nor is it "widely used chef lingo". I'm aware that I haven't given any references - that's because I doubt there are many, since it is primarily a colloquialism and not likely to occur very frequently in published material. In case any of you were wondering, I did not invent the term myself, nor is it particularly new: I initially came across it in the early 1990s, in a book which was probably published some years before that. Unfortunately I no longer have the book in question, and am thus unable to cite it as a reference. I'm intrigued by its categorisation as "very dumb hoax" and "BJAODN", apparently solely on the grounds that those making the comments haven't heard of it. It may well not meet standards of verification, in which case it is likely to be deleted, but if it's a hoax then you must all be hallucinating, since you've read an entry written by someone who's been living for the past year on stuff that apparently doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chile Nose Jam (talk • contribs)

WP:V is extreemly important. ---J.S (t|c) 16:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computinglaptops[edit]

1. The author of the article is a new user who uses the same name as the article he created, making it look suspiciously like a Biography article. 2. The text of the article is really poorly done, just copied and pasted, really. 3. The website itself doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB 4. The article itself may be writen from a signifigant POV, or using Original Research. And since I don't really understand WP:NOT, it may or may not fall within that area. Logical2u (Wikibreak) 19:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"six pack speak"[edit]

Non-notable, prod removed TigerShark 19:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entry is relevant. Although the content is decidedly local in nature, I have no doubt the page itself will pick up numerous hits as there are almost 15,000 registered users on the three major Mississippi State University message boards combined. These message boards (as well as many of the college message boards) have taken on a life of their own as many of them have their own histories and lexicons. As a result, I plan to address this history and expand the page over time. I think this is an burgeoning area for Wikipedia and an opportunity to add some local flavor to the site. Although I am a poster, I am not one of the message board founders. The board has become increasingly important to me. Rest assured this is not an advertising ploy. I am just trying to place some Mississippi State icons on Wikipedia. You'll notice in my history that I added an entry for our University's President yesterday. I had hoped to add entries for our coaches, our sports histories, our message boards, and other traditions. Croomdawg 14:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Croomdawg[reply]

Also, I took out the reference to the mullet as an inside joke well known to fans of Mississippi State, but would likely miss their mark when viewed by others.Croomdawg 14:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Croomdawg[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summerlin Las Vegas Real Estate[edit]

POV, maybe belongs in Wikinews, includes material generally presented in other articles with less POV, includes areas outside of the topic area, is no different then any other area of Las Vegas, not an encylopedic topic. Tried as a prod, but creator pulled after anon added reason as news worthy, which it is. Promo for real estate company. Vegaswikian 19:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result of the debate was Delete, after discounting comment by invalid voter. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Bergen County, New Jersey[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Indrian 19:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except, you know, that list has content and the ability to be completed. - Kookykman|(t)e 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And so does this. There is a finite number of cemeteries in each county. information can be added into the list, and like the other list, it can be completed as well. --ZeWrestler Talk 16:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the lists are new and have yet to be really looked at by other wikipedians. therefore, your destroying the potential for the content to be added by putting it up for deletion now. --ZeWrestler Talk 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, after discounting comment from invalid voter. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Essex County, New Jersey[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Indrian 19:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, after discounting comments by invalid voter. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Hudson County, New Jersey[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Indrian 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, after discounting comments by invalid voter. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Middlesex County, New Jersey[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Indrian 19:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, after discounting comments by invalid voter. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Ocean County, New Jersey[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Indrian 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment surely they will be long dead by now? :-) Seriously, I don't think you have any basis for this - they will know where the cemeteries are already - do you know anyone who has had to rely on the WP list? BlueValour 03:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, after discounting comments by invalid voter. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Somerset County, New Jersey[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Indrian 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in the United States[edit]

A list that can only become too large and unmaintainable if allowed to remain. This is much better handled through categories. Indrian 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 20:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Rocholl[edit]

This is pretty clearly a vanity page. The only thing keeping me from proding it is the (unsourced) claim that Rocholl was named MVP of the Columbia football team. In my opinion, being named MVP of a Division I-AA football team doesn't make a person notable. djrobgordon 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. - Kookykman|(t)e 20:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica di Milano[edit]

Hoax page, created by anonymous IP (its only contribs) in Oct. 2005; nothing on Google or IMDB for either her or the film "Ambassador" she is supposedly making NawlinWiki 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Media Campaigns[edit]

The organization in question meets neither WP:CORP nor WP:WEB, and the article itself is just a promotional piece full of wanky corporate buzzwords. Reyk YO! 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No Consensus.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of rape against United States presidents[edit]

At least two of the four entries are ludicrous and a third (Jefferson) is POV and speculation which should be covered within the main article --JohnFlaherty 02:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Has been through AFD before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Open the Head[edit]

Daniel Pinchbeck already has a personal page in which this tiny stub could be included. I'm not sure why it's grouped in the categories it's in, as it's not an academic book nor is it a religious text. Speedy deletion? Billycuts 17:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How ridiculous. If this were strictly raw data about the book, you might have a point, but it isn't-- if you honestly think that books published by mainstream publishers shouldn't have articles, then I'm afraid that you have some seriously warped ideas about what belongs in an encyclopedia.--SB | T 07:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, was there an honest argument buried in that sputtering? But to address one of your strawman statements ("...if you honestly think that books published by mainstream publishers shouldn't have articles..."), try arguing against something I actually said. Hint 1: leaving out adjectives in order to warp someone else's actual meaning? Not nice. Hint 2: what's missing from the noun "books"?
  • I'm afraid that you have some seriously warped ideas about what belongs in an encyclopedia. I'd say the same -- with actual justification -- for anyone who confuses an encyclopedia with Everything2. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try being civil, Calton. As for reading your rationale, it seems you have none for deletion, simply that we're "not Amazon" or a library catalog. Great, but that doesn't address the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mobile phone, my desk calendar, or my MUJI compact electric desk fan in front of me are all clearly real, but they're not getting articles, are they? --Calton | Talk 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Info on the book can be merged into the author article. Then leave a redirect from Breaking Open the Head to Daniel Pinchbeck. --Uncle Ed 15:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not in a million years be deleted, let alone (choke!) speedied. There's an argument for merging to Daniel Pinchbeck, and I think that would be a good result. Regardless, AfD is not required for keeping, merging, or redirecting. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Charger[edit]

Is not notable enough. Plasma Twa 2 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 20:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Beel[edit]

Not notable enough. Plasma Twa 2 01:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian world[edit]

Doesn't meet the WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Either delete or expand. Plasma Twa 2 00:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchdog journalism[edit]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 02:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Calder[edit]

Vanity - contradicts Wikipedia's Vanity policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by London23 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. TheProject 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Dordy[edit]

Article lacks sources to support claims. Only source is given. I'm not even sure whether this was just made up. Rob 20:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tynan[edit]

Not notable bio. -- Wikipedical 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan consumer market[edit]

Created by User:Cwaldie, who has been creating a few seemingly unencyclopedic articles. Slac speak up! 07:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Students need this information!!!!

There are hudreds of students that need this specific information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sick of having people come to me because they could not find this information.....firstly I see no reason why the information provided can't be seperated into the desirable categories. I put the information in here when I know student will be using it for ther finals. If I have time I will break it up and exapand on current articles as the inforamtion found in these articles are not specific enough. I thought that wikipedia is where student can find information that may be hard to come by. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps you want to dum down our society. Perhaps rather thatn bitching you could contribute and take what wikipedia does not have out of my article and merge it with other articles.

pissed off cwaldie

futher more If you want to delete all of this you are an idiot or perhaps out of touch. This is CURRENT INFORMATION.

'few seemingly unencyclopedic articles' get real I have only put up one article. This article was also only put up a few hours ag. This better have nothing to do with me saying no to translating the bible into zulu.

I look forward to seeing you replace this article with something better containing more information of this nature and putting it up for review.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwaldie (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was Delete.

The Dark Crusaders[edit]

Delete Is it REALLY noteworthy? --Mrdie 06:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film series)[edit]

at the bottom of every films page there is a table of other chainsaw mas films this article is uneeded--Childzy 11:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was already redirected. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate Committee investigating 1996 campaign finance scandal[edit]

There is no such committee. The relevant info has been moved to the appropriate committe's page. —Markles 02:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of Anime[edit]

Since this offers little more than a list, lets use this instead: Category:Anime Influenced Animation Dakart 21:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was KEEP. syphonbyte 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotem[edit]

Accusation
Article is repeatedly recreated with nonsense contents. Gotem is a very small hamlet in Limburg, not a city with 30K + inhabitants. Gotem has no encyclopedic value as it is in reality, and the article contains no info on the hamlet to show otherwise. Previous versions of the article were even worse. See also Polfbroekstraat for similar useless articles by same authors Fram 21:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Absolutely not, for your information syphonbyte is a colleague of mine. Although Gotem is one of his other (infrequently used) usernames, which it mentions on his user page.--The Raven 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not Raven. I can verify this if you wish, we are both colleagues working together. You may send me an email if you wish at syphonbyteATgmailDOTcom, or visit http://www.villageoffools.com to verify the existence of syphonbyte. You can visit http://plaza.ufl.edu/dmitrid to see that Raven is a totally different person. Or you could have looked at our edit histories to see that we have edited totally different articles with the exception of these Belgian ones. Furthermore, claiming that other "nonsense edits" have been made by me is insulting and slanderous. All of my edits are legitimate, and you can see this in my edit history. I created and did a lot of work on TOC2_protocol (in collaboration with Raven) and I am the author of MailSlot. I have made many other edits (however I am not going to turn this into a list of work that I have done at Wiki), and claiming that my work is "nonsense" is a personal attack. syphonbyte 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a friend and colleague to both The_Raven and syphonbyte in the real world, I can attest to the fact that they are indeed two very different individuals. I could provide their names and contact numbers for verification, but that would be unreasonable due to privacy reasons. --Charlesxavier 22:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never saw the article to know if it was nonsense or not, but it appears that Eiland is also a real place [49]. ScottW 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not true that there are two such places. The other place is called Gottem, and is part of Deinze. The place these guys have created out of the blue is Cotthem. It is a street and a green field in Sint-Lievens-Houtem. Both Sint-Lievens-Houtem and Deinze are in East-Flanders, which is not the same as the province of Limburg. I know, because I live between these two places...User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have modified the page to include information only on the city of Gotem. Kottem is indeed a seperate city and will need its own article. syphonbyte 23:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've created the Kottem article to differentiate between Gotem and Kottem (which is also known as Gotem).
  • Comment The recreation of Eiland is due to the fact that it was deleted with absolutely no discussion at all because somebody thought it was not real and went on a deleting spree. I've done a lot of work here and I feel insulted again that you claim that we're only out to disrupt Wikipedia. syphonbyte 22:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with your use of places like Glenwood Heights and Coach Royal Trail Park argument, Flam, is that these places exist within densely populated areas (as can be seen by the solid yellow coloring on the Fallinrain pages). Thus, the population (which is determined by a 7km radius from the point), captures an extraordinary number of people. Glenwood Heights is in the county of Miami-Dade which is world reknown for its beaches, nightlife and tropical setting. It is also dense in population since it is a large city. Yes, Fallingrain may be questionable but only under certain circumstances. In this case, it is not. Since Gotem is rural, it does not exist in a city or other area of dense population, thus it is not unreasonable to count everyone in a 7km radius. 7km (approximately 4.3 miles) actually a very small radius to count a population anywhere and is easily walking/biking distance in a rural setting. --Charlesxavier 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example Hacking is a questionable activity, agreed? Well in certain cases it is a valid avenue of action, for instance in cases of national security. In the same way, Fallingrain is a double-edged sword. In some cases its data is questionable. In others, it makes logical sense. Case closed. --Charlesxavier 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments: The authors have also created the article Kottem, for which the same arguments as for Gotem, Polfbroekstraat and Eiland count. They have also started a Wikiproject, where the first action was uncivility towards an editor. The goal of the project is: "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better document the history and geography of Belgium, especially less-widely known municipalities which play an important role in the history of Belgium". None of the articles in question document a mnunicipality, and none of the streets or hamlets they are talking about play "an important role in the history of Belgium". Again, this convinces me that the editors in questions have no honest intentions towards these articles and are just trying to pull our leg. Fram 08:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your nomination, you state that Gotem is a "very small hamlet in Limburg." I can find multiple references to this place. I don't think there is any dispute over whether this is a real place. In general we keep such articles. I would agree that the fallingrain site gives somewhat misleading population counts, and perhaps these numbers should not be used in the article, but that's reason to fix the article, not to delete it. If you feel you can show a bad faith effort on the part of other editors to add nonsense articles, then there are other ways to do it. But so far as this article goes, I don't think there's sufficient reason for deleting it. ScottW 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotem is, as has been said, an existing place, though very small and non (or hardly) notable. The fact that it exists is already noted in the Borgloon article. As I don't see how it can ever become more than a stub, and as none of the info currently in the article is worth merging, I suggested deletion. I could have put merge instead, but what is there to merge? Current article: population is wrong, reference is wrong (in its data), picture is not relevant, Polfbroekstraat reference is wrong... So we are left with: Gotem is part of the municipality of Borgloon, in Limburg. All that info is included in the Borgloon article. No one has presented anything else that could be said about Gotem that would make it worthy of a separate place in this encyclopedia. Delete or redirect... Eiland is indeed, somewhat less verifiable, as in not at all. No city of that name exists in Flanders (there may be a cluster of three houses somewhere that is called Eiland, I don't know and care: it is unverifiable, unencyclopedic, and the current contents of the article are wrong. But I'll take it elsewhere, it was just to show the methods used by the editors involved, and the reasons to assume in this case bad faith instead of the usual good faith. Fram 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How can you assume that the editors are ill-intentioned? By the way, you are currently the only Wikipedian favoring deletion, whereas two major Wikipedia (and other Wiki-network) contributors in addition to 5+ others say otherwise. Why do you persist in accusing our efforts (and accusing members of sockpuppeting) and trying to delete the project page instead of helping us to correct it in a less drastic manner? Is your personal attack on our collective credibilities an attempt to discredit us in light of insufficient evidence for your argument? Yes it is. As I have stated previously, your arguments concerning the population count are weak since Gotem exists in a rural location rather than a metropolis for example. If you would like, I can fish out examples from all over the world. Case closed. --Charlesxavier 14:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you think the editors of this article are ill-intentioned, consider this: the largest PC vendors on the market today started out at shady warehouse operations. In America we celebrate something called the sense of entrepreneurship. People can risk credibility but they always have the opportunity to develop something great. If you really hate Gotem so much, why don't you go to the Dutch Wikipedia and delete that article? Better yet, why don't you help us translate its text and help us construct this article instead of tearing it down? --Charlesxavier 15:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From http://nona.net/features/map/placedetail.716552/Gotem/ :
  • "Gotem is a populated place in Limburg, which is a region of Belgium."


  • Can you explain how a village that is part of a municipality with some 10,000 inhabitants can have 21,000 inhabitants?
  • It is Wikipedia policy to only include things because they are notable, not because they may become notable. Hence, your comparison to PC vendors is baseless.
  • I feel that the two Wikipedia editors that voted/vote keep have been fooled. The other users seem to be one "group", as has been shown for some of them. They are not objective.
  • Why should I help on a project that has as its target to write pages about four hamlets because they are claimed to be important in the history of Belgium, when that isn't true? A project that starts out with such false objectives isn't worth defending or collaborating on, no matter how neutral a name it has
  • This is the version of Gotem with the "2 year editing history which are lost":
Gotem is a small city in the Flemish Barbant province of Belgium. It has postal code 3840.
Some facts about GOTEM are as follows: It has Lattitude 50.9167 degrees, Longtitude 3.8500 degrees, and an altitude of 59 meters. Its population is estimated at 39070, although it may increase to 39071 within the week. Alternate names for the city include Kottem and Cotthem. The city of Polfbroekstraat is .6 nm away from it.
Typically when one enters the city the name is said in salutation. Thus the phrase "GOTEM". Although this may be a bit of an urban legend.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotem" Categories: Belgium geography stubs
  • What is the info that was deleted? Let's see: the wrong province, teh wrong inhabitants, a ridiculous sentence about an increase in inhabitants, wrong alternate names, wrong info on Polfbroekstraat, and a ridiculous ending about the salutation. If you try to defend this, why would I take you or your intentions seriously?
  • This is the cached entry for Eiland, again referencing Gotem in a nonsensical way (the rest of the article isn't any better.
  • As for the people saying that the articles are (potentially) worthwhile because the placenames exist: yes, but they are streets, nothing more. Gotem is the only small village among them, the others are so unimportant that e.g. Polfbroekstraat has one (1) link on a Belgian page on Google. Now, if someone can give me a good text link for the medium-sized city of Eiland, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, it may be time to start believing that there is no medium-sized city with name, just like there is no village called Gotem with 20,000 inhabitants, etcetera. Fram 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

syphonbyte 22:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Charlesxavier 22:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm english so the american system is lost on me :) No she doesn't mean that but I'm em.. having a few translation issues and will get back to you. She is however ranting about how Durbuy is an example of what she mean. Get back to you in a bit. --Charlesknight 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please End This[edit]

No matter who is right about what, the fact remains that User:Fram is trying do delete this article simply because he thinks Gotem is insignificant. Well, this article meets the Verifiability guidelines of Wikipedia and thus should be kept. I do not want to argue or see more arguments for or against the factuality of the Gotem article, since we have already established that it is a true and meaningful location. --Charlesxavier

This AfD has only been up for about 24 hours, I'm not sure if it should be ended so quickly. --Syphonbyte

Downsize Me[edit]

Stop this nonsense![edit]

I happen to live in Belgium, lees than 15 km from Cotthem, Polbroek and Eiland. These are simply streets in the still largely rural town of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. One of my sources for this is Stratenatlas van Vlaanderen - Guide des Rues de Flandre. Standaard Uitgeverij, ISBN 90-0-20614-3. If anyone wants pictures of these streets, I will provide them next week (I have to correct a lot of exam papers now)- I like to cycle in that area. It is time to stop this nonsense. Fram is perfectly right. All these articles must be deleted ASAP. They constitute vandalism. As for Gotem, it does exist, but is far smaller than claimed by its supporters here (according to the same source as quoted above, less than 1 square kilometre). The place in East-Flanders is called Gottem (with two t's - and that influences the pronuciation) and is now part of Deinze. By the way, the fact that these guys do note even realize that the province of East Flanders is not the same as the province of Limburg and is in fact to the WEST of it (Belgians are particular at geography, you see) proves that they have invented all this. Stop creating a parallel universe and start writing real articles. Or leave Wikipedia, which you are just rubbishing with these edits. .User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of my current position[edit]

While I would like the AfD to continue for now as a place of discussion, I don't think that the current article on Gotem, which finally is about a real, though small, village (hamlet, whatever) should any longer be deleted. After the users involved have had two years of editing and only could produce wrong facts about the village, this AfD has achieved that they have researched finally the village they wanted to have an article. Why they cretade an article about a place they knew nothing about escapes me, but the current article, minus a few serious errors, can be kept (it would be better merged with Borgloon, but that is a minor point). As for the other articles, and the project: delete them all. The three articles (including Oordegemsestraat) can never become worthwhile, as there is (as opposed to Gotem) no village to describe. It's just a poin ton a map. The article Eiland is the most ridiculous of them all. The project, while having a nuetral title, is as it is presented (defending those three articles), equally worthless. If the authords want to change it in a worthwhile project, they are free to do so. I feel no need for it. As for contributing to articles about Belgium: I have done so, quite a lot in fact, as can be seen on my contributions page. I don't feel the need to create articles about smaller entities than the municipalities except in certain important cases (like the Antwerp districts, or Doel), but people that are willing to make a serious article about such villages (deelgemeentes) are of course welcome. I would never SD or AfD those. Finally, I will probably in the next few days start AfD's on Eiland and Polfbroekstraat, so the discussion of those can be held separately. I will ask some long-retm editors from Belgium to have a look at the articles and give their impression, so that we got some impartial and informed opinions on them (as most of the opinions here lacked one or both). If no new arguments or questions are raised here, I'll probably take my criticisms of the current Gotem page to the discussion page of the article, and stay out of here. I stand behind my earlier statements here, and behind the AfD, because the article at the time of the AfD wasn't worth anything and did not refer to a real village. Now it does, and now it contains some correct info, and so for me it can stay. Fram 19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on the project; the current goal was to defend these articles because they are relevant to the project and quite pressing. The overall goal is similar to other projects about countries, and this will remain the overall goal of the project. syphonbyte 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are these articles relevant to the project? How are Eiland or Polfbroekstraat important to the history of Belgium? What prior knowledge did you have of these places before creating the articles and the project to let you make such a statement? You didn't know where Gotem was, how big it was, or anything else about it, but still you decided that it had to have an article and a project for it and the likes? Fram 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The project is for Belgium, and was created long after those articles existed. Since they are related to Belgium and are the work of the only current members of the Belgian WikiProject, it made sense for them to be part of the project. At any rate, the Belgian WikiProject didn't even exist until I made it, and I phrased the goals generally enough to allow work on a lot of other Belgian pages to be coordinated through the Project, which was my intention. syphonbyte 20:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The End[edit]

This AfD no longer has any use, I believe. The clear consensus is Keep, for Gotem at least. All discussion should be moved to the relevant talk page. I'll preserve this page. If any admins or anybody like that think this page should be opened back up for edits for some reason, then go ahead and do that, but I think the article's talk page is much more appropriate.


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as a clearly notable program. Nomination is spurious. FCYTravis 07:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Angle (TV series)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete, and then move things around per Kjkolb. Petros471 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Border Guard (disambiguation)[edit]

This dab page is not really a dab, it's just a duplication of the Border Guard (also an "umbrella" article). Now I'm extracting the list of national agencies from there in a separate article, which gonna function as a dab also.AlexPU 15:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfy and speedy delete under A7. The JPStalk to me 22:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Status[edit]

Moved here from speedy. Davodd 21:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drummer jokes[edit]

Funny stuff, but Wikipedia is not a jokebook, and there is no real history or psychology behind drummer jokes (at least not that can be anything but original research) worth an encyclopaedia article. Note that Wikibooks' Jokebook has been deleted, so transwiki is not an option. See WP:NOT. Delete. Sam Blanning(talk) 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Petros471 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hammer (porn actor)[edit]

Not sure if this guy fits the notability criteria for pornstars on WP... Any porn buffs wanna help out? Dakart 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Twins: All-Time Team[edit]

Relisting (someone tell me if I'm doing it wrong) for the following reason:

This was originally a list as published on thebaseballpage.com. The link to that source no longer works. When I checked it, I saw that thebaseballpage.com has modified their choices and added new players -- see [53]. Why should WP be a mirror site for one webpage's opinion of the best Twins players of all time? NawlinWiki 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The normal AfD procedure for renominating is here. Ziggurat 23:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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


Minnesota Twins: All-Time Team[edit]

Is this an "official" all-time team list or just someone's opinion? I assume the latter, so delete. But if this is from a notable, credible source, attribute and merge with Minnesota Twins. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 22:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female single combat club[edit]

mv from speedy Davodd 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TVFansOnline[edit]

mv from speedy Davodd 21:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Radio Station[edit]

Delete Non-Notable Philip Gronowski Contribs 21:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plus an advert. Lsjzl 21:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl Choir of South Florida[edit]

The article itself fails to denote any level of notability for this subject. Google search brings up this article as the first hit, the website of the choir, and a mere one other hit [55]. With only two editors working on it, I smell vanity. IrishGuy talk 21:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the entry, trying to mirror the entries of other pages in the category, and I tried to maintain the NPOV standard. Google was unable to index the site due to issues with site configuration that have since been resolved. What else am I missing? Epeterso2

You must illustrate notability. The fact that this only garners four Google hits (two of which are Wikipedia) doesn't exactly help. IrishGuy talk 21:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While standards for notability are contested among editors, the fact that the choir was founded in 2005 (not to mention the lack of google hits), lends one to believe the choir is not yet worthy of an encyclopedic listing. WP:Vanity may also be a good source to consult. -- MarkBuckles 22:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete but I hope this will be expanded beyond a collection of links... see WP:NOT. W.marsh 13:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of VJ Software[edit]

This page is a list made up entirely of external links, most added from anonymous IP addresse, and as pointed out, no page should consist entirely of external links Lewispb 21:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion that page has way too many external links too, please refer to WP:NOT, WP:EL and the Spam WikiProject. Lewispb 22:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all 3. W.marsh 13:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headache Center[edit]

We're not a random collection of information. Every self-respecting hostpital has a "headache clinic", and this page is an oxymoron. Same user also creating Danish Headache Center and Diamond Headache Clinic. None have independent notability. Delete all. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


BlueValour 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The assertion that Diamond Headache Clinic is "one of the world’s leading headache and migraine health care centers in the world" is not really verifiable. (What are the standards for such a claim?) I'm sure the headache clinics within various university neurology departments would dispute the claim. -AED 05:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete really doubt relisting would change things. Article can be rewritten with WP:CORP and WP:NPOV in mind, but since whoever did that would have to scrap the current version anyway, no point in keeping. W.marsh 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime Advisors Group[edit]

Is only advertisement Travelbird 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus for deletion, two different merge options suggested, if either one of those editors actually cares about merging, they can start the process. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WATM World Agricultural Trade Matrix[edit]

nn organization spam, needs to be reverted back to redirect to WATM-TV Adolphus79 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

someone just left a note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CountrySTAT that sounds good... I vote for merge with FAO unless wikify'd and substantially expanded in the next couple days... - Adolphus79 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Like World Agricultural Trade Flow and CountrySTAT, this article is not about an organization, but about a statistical tool used by the FAO. Since this information will be uninteresting to most readers of FAO, I suggest that these three articles should be merged to a FAO statistical tools article rather than to FAO. 132.239.90.209 21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategyn[edit]

reads like an advert for a NN corp Adolphus79 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Travelbird 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has since been pared down. I do not see how it violates Wikipedia's guidelines in its current form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyseo (talk • contribs)

well, if you had read the WP:CORP page posted by Melchoir, you would know the standards... you must think on a global scale, we can't just let anyone with any company write an article... also, your article gives very little information about the company, it reads like an advertisement... as far as how to become notable, the only recommendation I can make is to continue doing business, and continue growing... maybe one day in the future the company will be notable enough to be included, and someone will write an article that doesn't read like an advert... if you can cite sources that would prove one of the criteria on WP:CORP, then feel free to do so... it might just save the article from deletion... also, please remember to sign your talk page entries with 4 tildes (~~~~), so we know who you are... - Adolphus79 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article does not assert any notability. BlueValour 00:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete copyvio no prejudice against recreating with free text. W.marsh 13:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marching cobras[edit]

I placed a notability tag on this article the day it was created, hoping that the author would make some improvements to the article, and indicate how this particular high school marching band is more notable than any other high school marching band. I am afraid to report that there has been no such undertaking. Hence, this AfD. This band is simply not notable. Charles 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 22:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Forum Decline[edit]

Delete Original research. Przepla 22:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WitchesBrewPress[edit]

Non-notable press, fails WP:CORP. mtz206 (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A7: Unremarkable people/groups). TigerShark 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stale Urine[edit]

It's a stub for a non-notable and defunct band. Article is also very poorly written. relaxathon 23:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom... - Adolphus79 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio. W.marsh 13:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitar chords[edit]

Listcruft, and somewhat unmaintainable. Deprodded by anon with no explanation given. TheProject 23:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eoin Colgan[edit]

Non-notable TigerShark 23:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manual transmission driving technique[edit]

After transwikiing this, I suggested a merge with manual transmission, which was reverted by someone unaware that I had already transwikied this to Wikibooks. No recommendation yet, but instruction manuals do not belong on Wikipedia. TheProject 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Melchoir 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A[edit]

This is a nomination to delete:

These pages have information on the main pages of the world cup and are linked to the main pages. Therefore these pages are useless and a copycat of the match reports at fifaworldcup.com. Kingjeff 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key word being indiscriminate - for which I don't think this qualifies. Jooler 05:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These articles do not cite any references. This is a big problem. I do think they should be kept, but references need to be added, all of the information in these articles needs to be able to be verified.PaulC/T+ 01:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they don't... just adding an external link to the main fifa site does not cite the information in the article, that is just borderline link farming and advertising. The actual websites where the information was taken from is needed for every game on each page... I added a few of them to groups A and B, the rest still need them. PaulC/T+ 02:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It may be current sporting event but it's still news. I beleive Wikipedia policy says this is npt a news site. Kingjeff 03:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you said it's a current event. The main article serves it's purpose unlike the group articles. Kingjeff 03:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main article and the group articles serve different purposes. They provide different information. --Neo-Jay 03:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. The main articles with the scores provide information. The group articles is simply news. Kingjeff 04:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, so funny. Just let me know how do you distinguish current events and simply news? --Neo-Jay 04:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The information is very useful for lineups and substitutes and can be used to store more information about the games instead of clogging up the main 2006 world cup page. --Lummie 05:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But parts of it like score etc are already in the main article. Kingjeff 13:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Summary style and stop making that ridiculous point. You might as well delete Speed of light because the number 299,792,458 is already in Light, or History of saffron because Saffron already mentions Cleopatra. Melchoir 13:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This has nothing to do about how big the main article is. This info shouldn't even be in Wikipedia. All the group stage pages are nothing but news which is against Wikipedia policy. Kingjeff 13:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have not answered my question: how do you distinguish current events and nothing but news? --Neo-Jay 04:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
nothing but news would be if we took an article straight out of the newspaper, rewrote it and posted it here as an article. This is the biggest sporting event in the world, the entire world is fixated on this event, peple from 200 nations wanted to be involved in this tournament, detailing that is certainly a current event, adding as much detail as possible (with sources of course) is important. It would be "world cup cruft" if we were detailing what shoes each player wore, who wears their socks up or down, what size shorts people wear, which goalies use which types of gloves, etc. As is we're posting fact, and verifiable fact at that. Hope that helped, if not i'm sorry, but its obvious that this debate will result in a keep of all information. Batman2005 14:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question Neo Jay. A current event article is the main FIFA World cup 2006 article and nothing but news is the group articles. Kingjeff 14:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be time for you guys to give it up. Batman2005 14:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't an answer to Neo Jay's question. Melchoir 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Kingjeff 14:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neo Jay is asking you to define your terminology and expand on the general principles, if any, behind your thoughts. You have responded by restating your position on the current example. That is not an answer. I am explaining this to you so that you might understand why you are not being taken seriously. Melchoir 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Melchoir and Batman2005. --Neo-Jay 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Maybe an important game we can keep like the final. But to have all 64 matches is rediculus. Kingjeff 15:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No it's not, it's perfectly normal and indeed desirable for the major quadrennial sporting event in the world. I take it you haven't seen one of those almanacs which record the details of every Test cricket match which has ever taken place, back to the 19th century? -- Arwel (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not almanacs. If we're going to do all 64 matches why not make an article on every Wikipedia user. Kingjeff 15:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on ever user, its called his user page. Batman2005 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to take your comment seriously. Kingjeff 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question:Does anyone agree to keep it till the end of the world cup? Kingjeff 18:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and long after. This stuff about news is daft - the SuperBowl is news when it happnes but has plenty of pages. BlueValour 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and indefinitely thereafter. At the moment I count 4 delete votes and 34 keeps, accumulated in less than 24 hours. Does this not suggest to you that your nomination was rather ill-considered? -- Arwel (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Absolutely not. Kingjeff 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liquidex[edit]

Transwikied recipe deleted with no explanation given. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. TheProject 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Proto///type 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plameology[edit]

This article contains nothing but speculation and false comments. The term Plameology only brings up 191 references of use on Google. All of these are to Wikipedia and a couple left-wing blogs. --Jayzel 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While one may not like the way the article is currently written, or have problems with NPOV, or disagree with the politics of the bloggers involved, it's obvious that both the word and the Internet "Plameology" phenomenon are real. I've been tracking its increasing use on Google over the last few months. Anyone doing a Google search now will quickly see references to dozens of sites using the term, not just a "couple" of left-wing blogs (and for what it's worth, the National Review is a conservative publication, and Byron York is no left-wing blogger). Where did you get only "44 unique hits" which have nothing to do with Wikipedia? I don't get that number at all. (I see 207 current matches for "Plameology", 219 additional matches for "Plameologist", and 461 matches for "Plameologists", though none of those numbers necessarily reflects the extent of the term's use since many blog sites have only irregularly-archived comment threads. And FYI, the prominent Wilson and York quotes, footnoted above, are yet to appear in Google.)
I have made a good-faith effort to define an Internet neologism which has enjoyed increasing currency in 2005 and 2006, and which shows no sign of abating. Note that the article does not credit the views of any one Plameologist, does not recommend sites, and attempts to remain neutral on interpretation of the facts while summarizing the gist of what Plamelogists have been saying and predicting, sometimes with great accuracy, over the past few years. The suggestion that the word "[w]ill not be notable in a couple of weeks, let alone years" is colored both by partisanship and by a misunderstanding of the facts. Given that Fitzgerald's investigation remains open, and Lewis Libby will go on trial for perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Plame leak in January 2007, we're bound to see continued use of the word and more print references, such as yesterday's by the National Review. (And FYI, the non-indictment of Karl Rove after five grand jury appearances, publicized earlier this week by Rove's own lawyer, by no means ends an investigation which has always been larger than Rove. In fact, Rove's known role leaking Plame's CIA identity to reporter Matt Cooper, and his subsequent non-indictment after facing what many believe was considerable legal jeopardy, has led many Plameologists — who number among their ranks former prosecutors with significant experience with grand juries and complex conspiracy cases — to speculate that Rove is cooperating with an investigation that has quietly advanced to higher levels, and which will use Rove as a witness.[61][62] A number of Plameologists said this before Monday's announcement from Rove's lawyer.[63])
If the investigation fizzles, it will at least have been a notable (if transient) historical term, pointing to a particularly feverish moment in U.S. political/media/Internet culture. But for now, please keep. Sandover 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, please do not trot out the censorship canard. You are required to WP:Assume good faith. You gave no reputable source as suggested per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Also, even if the neologism was in wide use (which it isn't), it is nothing but a fancy term for a small group of people who do nothing but speculate -- and speculation is forbidden on Wikipedia per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Lastly, as this is just a random made-up word with no possibilty for expansion into an encyclopedic article it fails the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary test. --Jayzel 04:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right off, I'll say it's not fair to criticize me for a transition edit, since I deleted the "censorship canard" on my own. I won't defend it because I don't stand by it.
Second, I do assume good faith, but I must admit my good faith has been recently shaken by a crazy situation on the Laura Ingraham page, which seems to be occupied by a wild-eyed Laura fan (already banned once) and what appears to be his newly-minted sockpuppet sidekick. I'm exhausted and wary from a pointless epic battle over — get this — whether Laura spent six or eight days in Iraq in February 2006. (For the record, her website clearly states that February 5th is her first day in Iraq, and February 10th is her last day in Iraq.) I'm wondering if an awful spirit has taken over Wikipedia, and you'll see why if you look at the Talk page. So I apologize. That's the context.
Also, there seems to be an upturn of trolls on the Plameology-related threads, possibly because of the CSPAN2 broadcast on Friday (repeated several times over the weekend) in which Joe Wilson himself said the word "Plameologists". Wilson implicitly acknowledged the term's wide currency, and sang the praises of his 1000+ audience's collective Plameology skills. I'm pretty sure the event was billed early on as a Plameology Panel. It was delivered before a political blogger convention in Las Vegas with more than 100 media members present.The CSPAN video is definitely worth a look (go to "YearlyKos Convention" 6/9/06).
Please know I wrote the article in good faith. On reading some of your recommended links, however, I must admit (at this tired hour) that I'm more convinced that the article should be deleted than not. But I don't want to believe that, so I reserve the right to revisit the issue tomorrow, if you don't mind. A couple hours ago, I thought I might be able to revise the article to conform it to all Wikipedia standards. Maybe I will think so again tomorrow when I'm less sleepy-headed. Sandover 08:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Voice! Your Vote![edit]

No assertion of notability. Article was added by User:Yvyv which makes this a vanity page more than likely. NN group. Dismas|(talk) 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Voice! Your Vote! is a registered non-profit organization. Registered with the State Governemnt of Maryland in Baltimore, MD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yvyv (talk • contribs) 01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No one doubts that it exists, but Wikipedia doesn't have an article on just anything. Has the organization been the topic of multiple non-trivial reviews by impartial, reputable sources? If not, it fails our standards of notability/ Melchoir 01:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (per arguments in this and the other related articles). W.marsh 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California High School Speech Association[edit]

Delete NN Organization with just over 1500 Google hits. Only claim to notability is being associated with the National Forensics League, and community consensus has many times in the past agreed that regional or local branches of a notable organization are not notable simply by association. No claim to notability pm_shef 23:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fool's Gold Loaf[edit]

Please. We don't even have an article on the restaraunt. This could be a one-sentence blurb in the Elvis article. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio High School Speech League[edit]

Delete NN Organization with less than 150 Google hits. Only claim to notability is being associated with the National Forensics League, and community consensus has many times in the past agreed that regional or local branches of a notable organization are not notable simply by association. No claim to notability pm_shef 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Your reasoning is good, but in this case, the question is more whether the State level organisations are notable independantly of the National Organisation (NFL). My argument is that they are not. I absolutely agree that the National Forensics League is notable, but as per many past decisions, I don't feel that regional divisions of a national organisation are notable enough for an article unless they can establish that notability on their own - which this article, and the others, don't do - pm_shef 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, retitle per WP:NAME appears in order. W.marsh 13:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PHSSL[edit]

Delete NN Organization with around 1500 Google hits. Only claim to notability is being associated with the National Forensics League, and community consensus has many times in the past agreed that regional or local branches of a notable organization are not notable simply by association. No claim to notability, plus, much of article is simply a collection of lists pm_shef 23:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The issue isn't whether it "provides all the facts" the issue is whether it is notable enough to have an article. The article at present is simply a collection of lists - that is unencyclopedic. - pm_shef 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Forensic Association[edit]

Delete Organization is not notable except by association with the NFL (which does not make it deserving of a page). Article is filled with weasel words, industry jargon, lists, and specific information (like scoring systems) that are unencylopedic. Despite its claim of being one of the most successful organizations in the United States it has just over 500 google hits. pm_shef 00:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's important to note that besides the first paragraph of the article, the rest of it is simply a "how to guide" of debate in texas. Something more appropriate for their website than an encyclopedia - pm_shef 03:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Keal[edit]

The article was created and primarily edited by 69.137.236.54 who admits that he is the subject: Talk:Solomon_Keal. Clearly vanity and I fail to see the importance or notability of the subject. Google search [66] brings up nothing notable, but the first two hits are the official website and the unofficial fan site...curiously, both of which are registered to the same person as a whois search will show. Clearly this is vanity/spam by someone who is attempting to spread his name all over the internet. IrishGuy talk 00:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The shadiness is rampant. The two websites (official and unofficial) are registered to Stephen Simons [67] and [68]...who is the only person to review Solomon Keal's Thoughts and Affections album on CD Baby [69]. His other album, Heritage, also has only one review [70]...and the reviewer is Keal's father-in-law [71]. 69.137.236.54 has also been spamming Wiki with links about his religious sect: [72]. IrishGuy talk 00:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, that's some amazing research, my man. Well done. Second of all, this guy is... well, I'm not going to say anything bad about him. However, he should get a very stern warning or a short-term block. -- Kicking222 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus bean counting might suggest otherwise, but remember that AfD is a discussion, not a vote... 2 strong arguments to keep verse several "per nom"s to delete. W.marsh 13:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Forensics Coaches Association[edit]

Delete Article is almost entirely a description of various types of debate which already exists at Debate. Besides that, the article makes no claim to notability at all and gets a grand total of 37 Google hits pm_shef 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentI agree that debating is important, but this page (wisconsin, not texas) is simply the same information that already exists on Debate. It has little unique content and doesn't meet the crucial test of claiming notability.


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

The result of the debate was delete - it's been transwikied. Not really a soft redirect due to typos etc. Proto///type 14:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derivation Snells law[edit]

Transwikied to Wikibooks, deprodded without explanation. I'd suggest a redirect to Snell's law, but anybody typing in "Derivation Snells law" (which has two grammatical errors anyways) is likely looking for the actual derivation, not just the law itself. TheProject 00:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was closed, not an AfD. Melchoir 01:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francs2000[edit]

This user is a bastard who deletes other people's hard work for no good reason and should be STOPPED! Wikipedia cannot be allowed to get away with this tyranny! Stop this user NOW! Jeeperscreepers 00:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Cops[edit]

I'm not really sure about this one. From the article I have absolutely no idea who or what "Jimmy Cops" is. I contacted the author on his talk page, but he didn't respond. Nothing on Google either Travelbird 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational Leadership and Supervision[edit]

advert - at best, a single sentence on main university page would be enought Charlesknight 18:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Richardcavell 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was spam. DS 04:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S10forum.com[edit]

Spam. Need I say more? --ApolloBoy 02:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep; this is not an article. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sandbox[edit]

blatent eye sore, vandalism magnet, an afront to everything that wikipedia stands for, take it to uncyclopedia please--Popelanfel 03:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS Wolf[edit]

No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100th day[edit]

Delete OR holiday.- CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Richardcavell 03:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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