< June 18 June 20 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

June 19[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 as bad-faith nomination, borderline vandalism. — brighterorange (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google[edit]

Wat is so damn notable about a stupid search engine? Nothing, at least in my ernest opinion. --Ryan McGuinness 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't you see how important this search engine is to society? Aint 17:54, 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 no consensus -- Samir धर्म 04:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Mathew[edit]

Big Brother housemate, per precident.-- 9cds(talk) 00:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sue how to assume good faith out of someone nominating someone notable to make a point :) -- 9cds(talk) 23:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I couldn't figure out what you meant to say just then. WP:POINT is not relevant to someone commenting on a discussion, particularly when you are the nominator, and the fact that you mistook the precident (sic) to be delete when infact it was merge and redirect, which is not what AfD is for. You could have had the merge discussion somewhere less disruptive, which BTW, is what WP:POINT is about. Ansell 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the precident. I put it up for AfD because I felt it needed discussion. -- 9cds(talk) 09:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference the spelling is precedent. AfD is not the place to try out things you aren't sure about. It is for being certain of something yourself before coming here. Did you put this on the relevant Noticeboards and Wikiprojects before doing this? Did you prod any of the articles?
And your wanting everyone else to know exactly the steps you followed to nominate this, which is probably relevant since you had to fix up your RfA because it wasn't formatted correctly, is just ludicrous. Actually warning me for 3RR for removing the single-use instructions that interfere with this process shows a damn lot of immaturity. Stop being a process wonk. Ansell 11:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil. -- 9cds(talk) 11:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What was the uncivil bit? Ansell 11:44, 20 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 no consensus; arguments raised for all of delete, keep and 2 merges, but no consensus that I can see -- Samir धर्म 04:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Mathew[edit]

Big Brother housemate, per precident. -- 9cds(talk) 00:39, 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 keep -- Samir धर्म 04:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Deering[edit]

Big Brother housemate, per precident.-- 9cds(talk) 00:42, 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 no consensus -- Samir धर्म 04:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Brunero[edit]

Big Brother housemate, per precident. -- 9cds(talk) 00:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. Nonnotable housemate. May be notable in the future based on his journalism career but does not seem so currently- Peripitus (Talk) 01:43, 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 Speedy delete as it does not say why the club is notable/important. It has a list of members which are "important" withing the club, but there is nothing that claims that they are actually notable, rubbing off onto the club.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. David Catholic Secondary School Library Club[edit]

Original research, vanity page, verifiability, unnotable and unofficial club. Evergreen98 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a followup to my original comment: I'm a former student of this school, and I have reason to believe that this page was created as a vanity page, using original research and written by the people listed in the article. I have nothing against the "club" or its members, but I don't believe Wikipedia's the place for this sort of stuff. Evergreen98 00:50, 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 speedy delete, A7. —Cuiviénen 18:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UH-6F[edit]

Advertisement Nv8200p talk 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

433 g-hits, which by my standards, means delete. Morgan Wick 00:54, 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 --Ezeu 16:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neuropsychoeconomics[edit]

Non-notable journal, only one issue has appeared up to now -- Koffieyahoo 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's not unacademic, it's just a fairly new field with few practitioners. And as such it can take off or fizzle out. ~ trialsanderrors 18:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like something we can't cover per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 24 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 no context. Just zis Guy you know? 11:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tetron[edit]

This article is pure advertising for an on-line game.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 a7 club - actually a league is a club of clubs - which does not assert impoartance.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Football League[edit]

Non-notable local football league. No assertion of notability. —Cleared as filed. 01:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Thanks, but I think that was a bad idea. It is no more spam than any other league website and it helps editors assess the AfD. I have restored the link. BlueValour 03:00, 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 Obvious Keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Bowker[edit]

No vote. This was prodded for five days, but I feel it requires consensus. Prod nomination was "vanity/nn: 1) dubious references to Mr Bowker have been deleted from other articles already (see discussion page for details) 2) "Dean" of Trinity College, Cambridge: There's a master of Trinity, who may well be notable. This "dean" story seems like an attempt to trick readers into believing Mr Bowker was a leading figure at Trinity. He was obviously not. 3) As other people have pointed out, there's thousands of people who may claim to have been 'consultants for UNESCO.'". For myself, I can add that the article has been around since 2003, and that enough editors have contributed to it to make its deletion necessarily controversial. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Further investigation reveals he probably offered comment, along with many many other religious experts, on some segment of the BBC’s "World of Faith Week" in October 2004. Hardly backs up claims as a "BBC broadcaster" i would have thought (otherwise i'm updating my CV). Rockpocket 03:56, 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 Speedy delete as reposted material. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon the evil inside 2 CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon The Evil Inside 2[edit]

Not notable fangame. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 01:24, 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 Speedy delete as a repost of article in the same form.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Tomczyk[edit]

This was nominated for deletion once, got deleted, and then somebody recreated it. I request that we delete and then Salt. RedRollerskate 15:26, 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. Sango123 17:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kierkegaard[edit]

WP:BIO Related to notable person, but not notable . John Nagle 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the brother of Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, and the article focuses on that. There's little independent notability, although the subject of the article was a bishop. (Is being a bishop notable? That should equate to being a VP of a large corporation, which Wikipedia doesn't usually consider notable.) --John Nagle 01:32, 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 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Adventist Hospitals[edit]

This is conspiracy theory stuff - listing problems at three hospitals, when there are more than 50 of these in the US - see List of Seventh-day Adventist hospitals. John Broughton 01:35, 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--Ezeu 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thrasher cup[edit]

Non-notable. There has to be a threshold for sporting events to be notable. A reasonable threshold might be a State event (USA) or a County event (UK) for example. In my view, an informal event simply within a City must fall below the threshold otherwise WP will be flooded with events of only very local significance. BlueValour 01:53, 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 speedy delete as vandalism (spam, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, tone, no context). Just zis Guy you know? 11:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogavidaananda[edit]

Delete. Reprod. 1st prod was "Inappropriate title, original research, no context." 2nd prod was "spam." Both are right.- CrazyRussian talk/email 01:58, 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 merge/redirect to Colin Farrell. --Ezeu 16:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bordenave[edit]

nn, some search results list her as a model, but only a few results come up when 'Farrell' is omitted from the search. Ckessler 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The main Colin Farrell article already has enough info on her (i.e. a sentence or two) - Richfife 04:36, 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 speedy deleted by Zscout370. --W.marsh 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Coffee Connoiseur[edit]

Tagged for speedy delete as attack page, but the editor keeps removing the tags. Juvenile attacks against teacher by schoolkids. Fan1967 02:16, 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 Speedy delete copyvio.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Paradoxum[edit]

Probably a copyvio, and certainly a cut-and-paste of a scientific article on the web NawlinWiki 02:32, 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 17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Biblical Evidence of Jesus' Historicity[edit]

Original research, POV promotion. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:32, 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 keep. Sango123 17:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Hornak[edit]

non notable, unverified claims, no sources or references. by the exaggerated language, appears to be vanity, or advertisement. Contributor has also created multiple entries of the another subject (variations of name Eric Spoutz) which looks further like spam. Tychocat 02:36, 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 speedy delete. Joelito (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Aquarium[edit]

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC, borderline hoax. Claims of 3 mil. sales only added after I originally prod'd the article [4] [5]. Their own myspace site originally said they sold a total of 3 cds before the prod, was changed afterwards (sorry no link for this one though). Regardless, there's no evidence that this is more than a couple kids with a myspace site: [6] --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no evidence that these are just "a couple kids with a myspace site". The original music on the site proves that they created music. It is interesting though that the sales were added after you prod'd this article. Maybe it needs further looking into, but I don't believe deletion is necesary without better proof of a hoax. -Inuyasha86

Actually Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in order to remain. See WP:VERIFY. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for being so informative. -Inuyasha86

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Joelr31. Yanksox (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kane robertson[edit]

Delete. This page is clearly a hoax. Google provides no hits on Kane Robertson in the context provided in this article. --Danielrocks123 03:07, 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 speedy deleted as vandalism (hoax); hoaxer blocked. Just zis Guy you know? 09:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Amersham[edit]

Probable hoax though it doesn't look like one. No relevant Google hits. Will withdraw nom is some credible references are provided otherwise can be deleted as unverifiable. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 03:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the Earl of Inverness, if one may pick a nit. —Tamfang 05:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk. Guess they weren't that meticulous. They left that one off the list. (Why do the royal family need all these titles, anyway? They're princes, for heavens sake. Isn't that enough?) Fan1967 05:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're thinking of the future. Andrew's grandchildren won't be princes. —Tamfang 06:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There are a number of articles on noble families created by this author, Johnpallen (talk · contribs). His user page claims he's a genealogical researcher. Either he has sources for these, or they're all going to need to be looked at. If they're hoaxes, some of them (Fürsts of Schwarzenberg, for example) are awfully elaborate. Fan1967 03:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Fürsts of Schwarzenberg
Heir Presumptive: Durchlaucht und Fürstliche Gnaden Fürst Stefan-Karel Roberts-Schwarzenberg (1992-)
The heir Apparent is Stefan David Andrew Roberts-Cholmondely, Earl of Rocksavage, Viscount Villiers and Baron Ashley
The heir presumptive to the Earldom of Shaftesbury is Stefan David Andrew Roberts-Spencer-Churchill, Viscount Villiers, Baron Ashley.
The Heir Presumptive to the Earldom of Jersey is Stefan David Andrew Roberts-Ashley-Cooper (1992-), Viscount Villiers, Baron Ashley.
Stefan David Andrew Roberts, 11th Viscount Villiers. (b.1992)
Note also that the article deleted twice was Stefan Roberts. Looks like all these articles need serious review. A few of them are his name inserted into articles on real titles. The Fürsts and Villiers articles look like total fakes. (The Villiers article has since been restored to its original state as a redirect.) Fan1967 03:58, 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 speedy delete as nonsense - this was a fragment of fiction not an article, and the names didn't even match. Just zis Guy you know? 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Goldner[edit]

The title of this article is 'Samuel Goldner', when it in fact refers to Stephan Goldner. Further, the article is largely plagiarised from Scott Cookman's book Ice Blink. It is inaccurate (Cookman's conclusions are very much disputable, many bordering on fiction) and clearly not NPOV. Fipe 03:18, 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 deleted by RadioKirk per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schmizmo[edit]

Delete. Schmizmo is a neologism. This page was previously de-prodded with the comment "Google never lies." This is very correct, there is nothing there. --Danielrocks123 03:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a link to the "proper" use of the word in context is now on the page. This link leads to an amazon.com review of a kitchen appliance written by some random guy. The attempt to prove that the word exists only hurts this word's credibility. --Danielrocks123 03:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I felt that my link to the word being used in its proper context by a fellow human being was adequate proof that this word is indeed in common usage Jamface 04:23, 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 KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 09:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Tapes of The Beatles[edit]

  • What a load of bollocks for this over-inflated band.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 20:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan (book)[edit]

Speedy DeleteToo short, no info, if it's going to get expanded, do so quickly, because a thtis point it is a waste of space.--AeomMai 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another Islam related targetted by Qadianis for deletion. Siddiqui 19:38, 15 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:29, 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 TRANSWIKI to Wikibooks. TigerShark 09:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Values[edit]

List of different properties for CSS, but Wikipedia is not a web development reference manual. Possibly transwiki to wikibooks? -- Where 03:48, 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. TigerShark 09:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gecko sales[edit]

More corporate self-promotion NawlinWiki 03:49, 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. TigerShark 09:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

79-tone tuning[edit]

Original research (only major contributor is Ozan Yarman, who created the system), no verifiable sources, organized as step-by-step instructions and tables of data rather than an encyclopedia article. —Keenan Pepper 03:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not 79 equally spaced tones in an octave, if that's what you're thinking. —Keenan Pepper 04:58, 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. TigerShark 09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire vs. Republic[edit]

nn game with <600 google hits. One would expect that a computer game would show up more on the internet -- Where 04:16, 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 disambiguated and dehoaxed.  RasputinAXP  c 14:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping Shark[edit]

It's an obvious hoax. The prod was contested. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to delete the redirects this article has attached to it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:29, 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 speedy delete by JzG as vandalism and hoax. Kimchi.sg 10:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fürsts of Schwarzenberg[edit]

Hoax. Fails google search in any language. (edit: For some reason Google finds "furst" but not "fürst", even though the results have the umlaut.) See more info on hoaxer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl of Amersham. (Note to closing admin: there are a ton of redirects, as well as a category. There are also links from all over.) Fan1967 04:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this article, House of Schwarzenberg, has a totally different list of princes in the family. Anyone have any idea how to sort these out? Fan1967 04:34, 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. TigerShark 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair (singer)[edit]

non-notable, probable vanity, no WP:MUSIC Tempshill 04:25, 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. --Ezeu 16:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muie Maneliştilor[edit]

Unremarkable music group. Although a contemporary group, it doesn't show up in Google search results, unlike other similar groups. There is no evidence they ever released a single or an album. — AdiJapan ☎ 04:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know—do you read Romanian? Apparently most information (on the Web, anyhow) on this group is in that language. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops—guess you do (the "Japan" threw me). So what do all those web sites say, anyhow? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "muie maneliştilor" means "suck it up, you manele lovers". My best guess is that the article is a hoax, since it's hard to believe a manele group would denigrate its own genre. The 1500 or so hits on Google are only such vulgar invectives on discussion forums, not the name of a group. The few hits that do talk about a music group are Wikipedia and one website that copied our article word for word. — AdiJapan ☎ 07:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, those hits have nothing to do with the band. The band name just happens to be a widespread vulgarity. — AdiJapan ☎ 13:09, 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 & redirect. Sango123 17:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Olympics[edit]

Originally tagged by Kershner as CSD G1 nonsense, but Google has a few references to it. Still, only 448 unique Googles, so delete (not speedy). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the search for [Beerlympics] which has 82 more results... Any hard partying college student will know what these are, as will most members of the Greek community. Jrtf83 05:07, 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--Ezeu 16:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MiceChat[edit]

This article is self-promotional and linking to a discussion forum, much less having an encyclopedia entry dedicated about a forum (such as this one) is not encyclopedic and does not belong in the Wikipedia. Toring 04:27, 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. TigerShark 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulseware[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, WP:NN, WP:CORP, also Vanity, Advertising and to top it off, I can't find a google hit for it. Kershner 04:40, 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 Speedy delete under A3 - the website doesn't even exist yet —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-19 05:48Z

WorldGreeting.net[edit]

Delete. Almost nonsensical article about a website that is about as far from meeting WP:WEB as you can get. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:40, 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. TigerShark 09:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eon Blue Apocalypse[edit]

Delete Per WP:WEB and WP:NOT. This is a non notable unsourced article Aeon 04:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been blanked....can we just delete this now? Aeon 13:41, 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 DELETE. TigerShark 09:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHINGA CHANG RECORDS[edit]

Was speedy tagged, but I disagree with the tag saying that no notability was asserted in the article. I don't think the case was made particularly well by the author of the article, but one notable and one semi-notable rapper signed to the label might be a case for notability. No Vote for me, but I thought this deserved a vote generally Irongargoyle 04:44, 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 Closed as a merge doesn't require an AfD nomination.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal I Have Become[edit]

This is pointless. And it has no new information. Merge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jman8088 (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. --Ezeu 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy[edit]

Apparently there was a dispute on the article's talk page about a former speedy deletion of this article, so I took it to AfD instead of the prod I originally put on it. Anyways, the text already resides on Wikisource now and can be removed from Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a repository of source texts. TheProject 05:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been to the Wiki source page? It's the exact same. Yanksox (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for fun I put the first paragraph in babelfish to see what an NPOV but not fluent translator would come up with:

That it is essential condition for the existence of a State of Right that the Powers Public, with total respect at the beginning of reciprocal independence that governs them, they fit his action and they exert his attributions within the marks that the Constitution and the laws indicate to them, and that all the inhabitants of the country can enjoy the guarantees and fundamental rights that she assures the Political Constitution to them the State;

versus, the article's translation.

That for the Rule of Law to exist, public authorities must carry out their activities and discharge their duties within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the land, respecting fully the principle of reciprocal independence to which they are bound, and that all inhabitants of the country must be allowed to enjoy the guarantees and fundamental rights assured them by the Constitution;

I would like to see whether other Spanish and English bilinguals would really translate "un Estado de Derecho" -- in capitals in original -- as "Rule of Law" as opposed to a "State of Law" with a clear focus on the State rather than the legalities of the situation. It changes the whole meaning of para. 1 and there may be other issues in the remaining paragraphs, too. Carlossuarez46 01:34, 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 Speedily deleted as ((db-empty)).  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odysy[edit]

Non-notable band. Attempts to establish notability by saying that they've been "asked" to open for various bands, but no good proof of any of this, or any reason why they're notable is given. So on and so forth. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:47, 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 keep; apparent bad-faith nomination. DS 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aspies_For_Freedom[edit]

This is a puzzle that I'm struggling to understand. What is Aspies For Freedom? A forum or an organisation? Does it have forum users or members? Leaders or owners? When its only visible activist Joe Mele was removed from the group, all that happened, as far as I can tell, is his account was banned from the forum.

My instinct says that the entire Template:Autism_rights_movement is a fiction, documenting nothing more than a clever manipulation of Google and Wikipedia. All the Amy Nelson-created autism sites and domains are virtually contentless, with extensive links to each other. At dmoz they would mostly be rejected as linkfarms. This is not dmoz - a directory of websites - but an encyclopedia of things that exist whether or not websites about them also exist. Discussssssss. CalG 05:56, 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. This sounds familiar to me as well but no article at this location has been deleted until now. If you discover a recreation, please add ((db-repost)) to the article and, if it's at a different location than before, say where it was in the edit summary. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found the old title - it was Big Hands For Little Hearts. I note that I actually closed this article two days early, but there seems little point in reverting myself since it's a speedy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Hands for Little Hearts[edit]

Nn organization, no assertions of notability. MaxSem 06:55, 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 speedy delete. Material covered elsewhere, concensus, agreement from only author (apart from tagger). - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orks (spelled with a "k")[edit]

I think the title sums it up. This is the craziest bunch of fancruft I have ever seen. This is even my area of fandom too (8 years as a player of Warhammer 40,000). All the important information on this page is contained on Ork, a disambiguation page. What remains is a discussion of Ork reproduction!!! Granted, this is awesome and I'm saving it (perhaps even putting it on my user space), but it's from a non-notable (albeit highly amusing) parody site orcmagazine.com Delete or Merge with Orc sex... just kidding. Irongargoyle 06:58, 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 withdrawn by nominator. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Reitz[edit]

nn, per WP:BIO, part of a series of articles about non-notable people and articles previously deleted per AFD by this editor. Ckessler 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he did perform the first heart-lung transplant with Norman Shumway in 1981. I withdraw the AFD nomination. Ckessler 16:44, 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 Keep, Keep, Keep Eluchil404 01:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ménage à trois[edit]

This page consists of a dictionary definition; some inane statistics which could be added to any dictionary definition about sex acts, or many other things; and a list of movies and television programs with menages—which at most could go in a List. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. —Centrx→talk 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page is not nominated for its sexual content. The reference to sex acts is only that surveys about people's opinions on sex are more common than surveys on people's opinions about benches or the sky, so that more "inane statistics" could be found about such topics. —Centrx→talk 08:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, but note the surveys are also about experience with threesomes, and if I looked this up in an encyclopedia I might want to know how common it was. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has been merely a dictionary definition for over three years. The only expansion has been to add more movies. —Centrx→talk 18:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further it would be very silly to remove this article when (working from the framework that has been established) there is so much more to say on the subject. There must be surveys and articles written on households with 3 partners? It is far more common that people realise. Perhaps more work could be done to also include famous people who have lived in menange a trois such as Alan Moore (considered to be the greatest comicbook writer in the world) who lived with two ladies.

There are many areas in which this article needs improvement and a wide range of information that could easily be inserted to do so.

Like I said mark up clearly that it needs expanding but please don't delete as that would be wasteful and short-sighted.AWD--84.92.120.61 00:58, 25 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 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Cherries[edit]

Non-notable band; does not seem to be meet WP:MUSIC. google:"Krome+Plated+Yabbie" concerns me. ~ PseudoSudo 08:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey! there is a band called wild cherry. Or anyway, there WAS, their greatest hit- play that funky music was an one-hit-wonder in the sixties. not at "big" band, but not "local" either. I, for one, think that the Cherry deserves a little space of its own in wikipedia. [9]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC CLINIC Computer Service Center[edit]

(and also redirect at PC CLINIC.) Blatant advertising. The current version is after multiple attempts to help the author to tone it down, and to merge and redirect the two identical versions they created at different names: see some of the earler versions [13] for the full, flashing-GIF-ad-banner-packed, version. Their attention has been drawn to the WP policy on advertising, to little avail. In spite of this, the PR language in the article has not been removed. Delete as an attempt at advertising. -- The Anome 08:25, 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 speedy delete nn-group. A comprehensively worthless article, POV, unverifiable, vain and in the end making no credible assertion of importance. Just zis Guy you know? 09:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples Goatse Party[edit]

Forum cruft Surachit 08:35, 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. --Ezeu 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Tripoli (Star Trek)[edit]

Lifted straight from the article - "The USS Tripoli is a fictional starship from the Star Trek universe, which although never actually seen even once on screen, was mentioned in dialogue a couple of times." Everything mentioned a couple of times in Star Trek is notable? No it isn't. - Hahnchen 10:31, 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 Speedily deleted as cleanup work has been done.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do No Harm (disambiguation)[edit]

Disambiguation page no longer required due to changes made at Do No Harm. Tomcage9Talk Contribs 10:38, 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 keep. --Ezeu 18:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macarthur Square[edit]

Local shopping mall Skysmith 11:02, 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 speedy deleted per A7: no assertion of notability. User:Angr 14:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Jason Silver[edit]

Appears to be non-notable to me. Is part of a major flurry of edits about this person that has the looks of spamming. None of the text really states any enecyclopedic accomplishments. I say delete per WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 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. Petros471 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quova[edit]

Spam Mion 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable company --Zandarx talk 12:39, 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 no consensus to delete. Petros471 17:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Möbius resistor[edit]

Non-notable patent. Obviously trying to get coverage via Wikipedia, an amazing 80% of all Google hits are on Wikipedia and mirrors! The remaining ones are USENET archives or http://www.rexresearch.com (the home of "unconventional", suppressed, dormant, or emerging sciences, technologies, inventions, theories, therapies, and miscellaneous alternatives that offer real hope of liberating humanity). Please delete as WP:NOR. --Pjacobi 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it is only an unusually wound bifilar winding, a method used to construct inductionfree wire resistors. But nobody bothered to actually construct the Möbius geometry. --Pjacobi 13:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems sort of the best way to go, but I would assume better to proceed the other way around: Expand the two sentences about power resistors at resistor into an article, note the dominance of the wire-wound type mention the induction problem and bifilar winding. Then, as a historical curiosity, the Möbius resistor may be mentioned (to keep the nice drawing). But the current state is totally out of proportion (I know, that this isn't a deletion criterium). --Pjacobi 21:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed Jumbo Snails 18:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Once we do have a good article on non-inductive resistors, this probably ought to be merged there. Someone who understands the subject will first have to write that article, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Need better link that rexresearch.com, a website which promotes "suppressed/dormant/emerging science, inventions, technologies, experiments", including a lot of wacky stuff which can only be called pseudoscience in the most literal sense ---CH 21:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The rexresearch page is just a concatenation of a bunch of articles from other sources. Unfortunately those other sources are in print, and not particularly new, so there are probably no official versions online. Thus, the rexresearch link serves a useful purpose. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:17, 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. --Ezeu 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleem Pahalwan[edit]

Not a notable person. Google search only brings up this article. Zandarx talk 12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - An issue I have with this is that this guy could very well be made up. It may be theoretically verifiable if someone happens to have an Indian newspaper from the '40s, but for all we know now and most likely will know in the future, its made up. Also, if you read #2 under the official verifiability policy, it states "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor." Thus, we are requesting it be removed. Wickethewok 15:56, 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 keep.--Ezeu 18:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambient artists[edit]

Would be better served by a category. As is often the case for this kind of article, it's full of dubious entries, redlinked bands I've never heard of, and even several entries which are external links only. I see nothing here which can't be done better in a category. Delete. kingboyk 12:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't understand what the point of these genre artist lists is. The lists are so long that they don't really seem that usable. I can understand for more obscure genres where there would only be a couple dozen stand out artists, but at least there isn't like a List of rock artists. Wickethewok 15:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - For now I have cleaned up the list by removing spammy links, etc... Wickethewok 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this one so exceptional is that I found it. I don't patrol Wikipedia looking for garbage to delete, but when I find it (in this case whilst looking at "what links here" for a Featured Article I've been working on), I nominate it. If there are other useless lists that should be nominated for deletion, please go right ahead and nominate or drop me a line with the titles on my talk page. A bad article should never be kept just because other bad articles exist. --kingboyk 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm quite new here, but I was presuming looking at the sheer number of articles of this form that there has been some kind of discussion on whether they should be allowed at some point before. This article could be genuinely useful to a reader (admittedly not in its current state). Eventually this article can be put into some kind of chronological order, like other genre articles, and be annotated, which is impossible with categories. Iae 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - That sounds like a different kind of article. Lists (at least the ones I've seen) are just typically an alphabetic ordering of articles. I'm not quite sure what to call the type of thing you are describing, but I wouldn't use the term "list". Wickethewok 16:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By annotations, I just mean small comments alongside the entries. Most lists have these. In the case of this article it would be beneficial to have the years the artists was active, or, in the case of confusing entries such as Radiohead's or Broken Social Scene's, to clarify exactly why they are included. This can't be done with a category. If you don't even think that would be worthwhile, then fair enough, I'll let it go and give up. However, after looking through the articles here, very very few are good enough to not be replaced by an equivalent category so I can't even give an example of what I'm describing. Basically, I'm coming round to agreeing with you, but I can see potential usefulness for an article like this. I still think a proper discussion should be conducted somewhere relevent to all the genre list articles beforehand though (if that's possible). Iae 17:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please explain what is useful for an unanotated list that could as well be a category. BlueValour 21:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note that I removed the dozens of red-linked artists no one has ever heard of and got several of the articles linked to previously deleted. So, yeah, this is the de-spammed version. Wickethewok 03:29, 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 deleted, CSD-A1. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 22:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mo v t[edit]

This could be a dicdef at best if it was remotely notable. The speedy tag was removed, hence the listing here. Kevin 12:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A1, as per Kevin1243's orginal speedy tags, and under G1, as it is pretty much ((nonsense)): "This article provides no meaningful content". Nationalparks 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't quite qualify under G1 - it isn't patent nonsense - but A1 covers it. When requesting an AFD'd article be speedy deleted, please always give a reason as listed in the criteria. It really helps! ➨ ЯЄDVERS 22:28, 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 Speedy deleted per CSD A1, lack of context. Xoloz 19:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Waste Marketing[edit]

First revision looked like spam for a marketing company (and was prodded as such), but has since been deprodded by author and had the company name removed. It remains a non-notable phrase (0 Ghits). Matt Eason 13:23, 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virospack[edit]

More corporate spam from author whose only edits have been corporate spam NawlinWiki 13:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. Recury 14:19, 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. Petros471 12:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Espanian[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. No Google results related to this (for example, see [14] which is a refined search to show only the most relevant results - and even those don't contain any references to this "language". PeepP 13:43, 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. Petros471 12:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keighley and district service 760[edit]

This seems a pointless and hardly useful page, why is this single bus service given its own entry out of the thousands operated through the United Kingdom? Esp as there isn't even an entry yet for the route operator Keighley & District. Achmelvic 13:58, 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 Speedy Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (band)[edit]

Not particularly notable band. Also vanity. Delete. Am nominating other related articles:

Wickethewok 14:19, 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 keep. Petros471 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Bay Northern Hawks[edit]

Junior sports teams are rarely notable and do not meet any of the notability criteria for inclusion on WP. There is no reason why this page is any different - only notable teams should be included - so I would like to see the removal of ALL Junior/Juvenile and Children's teams that do not have genuine notability. How can any team in a Junior B/Juvenile/AAA Hockey League be notable? These teams do not compete in significant tournaments (though I'm sure their Moms and Dads and very proud) and are not professional. WP is not intended to be used as a catalogue of things that exist but an encyclopedia of things which are notable. This, and all the other Junior teams, are not notable and should be removed on mass. At best they could be mentioned on the article about the league - if the league is genuinely notable enough to warrant its own page - most will not. Robertsteadman 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For information - the first nomination was closed early due to too many comments, spamming by someone trying to protect the page and personal abuse being meted out at those wanting the page deleted. Robertsteadman 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not ... exactly. Let's leave it at generalised "personal abuse", without pointing fingers anywhere, huh? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The abuse was in one direction only. Robertsteadman 14:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. You wrote the nomination — why are you adding a "vote" as well? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't realised I couldn't. Many oters AfDs have votes by the nominator - I though that was what was needed. Robertsteadman 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was something started not so long ago by people concerned that their "votes" wouldn't count. Since votes aren't counted here, full stop, it's a rather useless effort, but it hasn't died out yet. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not at all - I nominated it first time because I do not believe ANY Junior sports should be on WP unless they are notable - as the AfD was closed without resol;ution it seems sensible, and needed, to re-open. I thinbk the kidie baseball teams should also go. Robertsteadman 14:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I question the good faith of this nomination. The nominator seems to be acting out a vendatta the past few days. If this second request is actually taken seriously I cast a KEEP vote. ccwaters 15:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith. Your "questioning" helps nothing here, and actively hinders the possibility of a civil discussion. Don't throw gratuitous nastiness. And you don't cast a KEEP vote, because AfD is not a vote. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no evidence of bad faith here, and nothing even remotely resembling WP:POINT. Your "strongest possible keep" in reply to "strongest possible delete" is rather more mocking than it needs to be, too. Please try to be a little more civil here. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... my "strongest possible keep" was first. BoojiBoy 15:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that professinal sports teams might warrant an article - but Jun ior B teams are not professional teams - they are below college level ice hockey - they are not notable. On the basis of your own comments you should have voted delete.Robertsteadman 17:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJunior hockey is not a true amateur (the opposite of professional) system. Hence the name change of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association to Canadian Hockey Association to Hockey Canada (Hockeys ruling body in Canada). There are basic regulated salary systems and contract signings and contractual agreements in all levels of Junior hockey. DMighton 04:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well said. Were I to be given complete control over what Wikipedia was allowed to include, there's no way I'd allow articles on every single damn Pokemon creature every created or every single walk-on character in some Star Wars quasi-canon fictional writeup. That being said, there seem to be a lot of folks who disagree with me. "Wikipedia isn't written to please me" is an aphorism that deserves to be set in granite. RGTraynor 06:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - Absolutely- there is much to be removed from WP - many computer games and characters, many minor and insignificant people and many non-notable sports teams. I totally agree that there is too much that is non-notable and, as editors, we should be working to improve WP not maintain that which does not deserve space. Robertsteadman 06:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In which case you should deal with the various Wikiprojects and WP policy and guideline pages to change consensus to explicitly reflect your views, and failing that, accept the prevailing consensus and move on. RGTraynor 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: or perhaps you, or someone else could explain how this youth team playing in a juvenile league are notable. Simply saying they are notable is not an arguement - please spell it out, how are this team of non-professional teenagers a team or any note? They are below Junior A and are, in fact, well below Rookie Ice Hockey.... If some evidence of genuine notability can be provided I will support a KEEP vote - but none has been offered. At best this should be an article about the league (which doesn't need every team's crest) but I would suggest that a junior/juvenile/midget league is lacking in notability too. So please, how are they notable? Robertsteadman 16:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As several editors now have commented, junior leagues are (1) not "juvenile," (2) the highest level of amateur hockey competition in Canada, (3) at the least comparable to American college hockey, since around five times as many NHL players are alumni of junior league teams than are alumni of college squads, and (4) at roughly the same age range as college players, which are explicitly notable per WP:BIO. Leaving aside that there is no such thing as "Rookie Ice Hockey", none of this is anything other editors have failed to tell you. If you don't agree that junior leagues should be notable, I refer you to my previous advice to work on changing consensus on notability criteria, but either you are interested in learning about how hockey is structured or you are not. RGTraynor 01:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: They play in a Junior JUVENILE and Midget league. I am working on notabailty and have already opened negotitations about getting some universal WP guideliens/policy on sports teams. Robertsteadman 06:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The way you bolded Juvenile makes me wonder if you knew what juvenile was at the time of writing it. So I will fill in the blanks... Junior is 16-20 year old players... Juvenile is 18-20 year olds... and Midget is 16-18 year olds. You've failed to mention that the league is a Junior "B" league with a multi-tiered regular season and only the games played by the 4 Junior teams mean anything. Also, you've failed to mention that the midget and juvy teams are only mentioned in passing in an article that is not in question here. But, just for the sake of remaining civil... I'll assume that you just haven't read anyone else's keep/delete reasons or the comments left on this AfD. DMighton 07:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is apparent you didn't read into it or didn't research it on any of the google hits you found last time you AfD'd this article. It is not a problem, I will explain. This JUNIOR league is multi-tiered during the regular season. As I can see, you seem to like euro football, so you might be able to understand this system. 3 different levels of hockey compete in interleague action... Junior "B", Juvenile, and Midget AAA... at the end of a roughly 40 game season... the 4 Junior "B" teams are the only ones allowed to compete in the playoffs... the playoff champion competes out west for the Keystone Cup. The Minor level teams compete in their perspective All-Ontario playdowns and no longer have anything to do with the TBJBHL... their results in the league do not enhance or disrupt their seeding in the Ontario minor playoff systems and are only used as "filler" for the Junior teams and as a way to warm up for the playoffs for the Minor teams. The Juvenile and Midget teams have not been included in the TBJBHL article other than in passing and have little to do with the Northern Hawks and therefore have nothing to do with this AfD. Hopefully this helps you. DMighton 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC) -- Also, Junior A, B, and C classifications are only partially based off of skill level... in fact, they are based mostly off size of the centre they play out of and what league is closest to their town. As well, Junior B teams could be competative in Junior A or Junior C, as Junior C could be competative in Junior B and even a few could survive in Junior A... examples of successful league switching is all over the hockey world... the Barrie Colts, Markham Waxers, Orangeville Crushers, and Listowel Cyclones just to name few involved in an uncountable amount of league moves. Even the Bradford Rattlers just jumped directly from Junior C to Junior A. DMighton 04:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As virtually everyone else has observed, notability is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I do not feel that an article about a famous person's cat, or some piece of art commissioned by a theatre in Nottingham are notable either. However, I accept that there are others who may believe differently, no matter how small a percentage of users may ever find such articles useful. Resolute 00:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notability is NOT in the eye of the beholder - that is a nonsense. The examples you gace are very poor - the cat is refered to in probbaly the most famous book of the 20th century, it is, quite probably, the most famous cat of the 20th century (certainly top 5). The artwork was commissioned from one of the UK's leading contemporary artists - not a 16-20 year kid learning the ropes. Notability is notability - kiddie sport is kiddie sport. Robertsteadman 06:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, kiddie sport is kiddie sport -- and this, given that it involves mostly people over the age of 18, is in no way kiddie sport. I don't want to become yet another person to comment that you obviously did no research before nominating this, so I won't. BoojiBoy 13:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The cat is only famous because of its owner. Anne Frank is notable, her cat is not, as it never did anything other than simply exist as Anne Frank's pet. By this argument, is the pet of any famous person notable? Maybe I will litter Wikipedia with articles about atheletes pets. Similaraly, the Sky Mirror itself is not notable. The artist may be, but at best, this piece of art belongs in that artist's article. What historical significance does it have? As I said, notability is in the eye of the beholder. I can accept that what you believe is notable is. All everyone here is asking is that you respect our beliefs. Resolute 03:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should have said this sooner, but I've been so wrapped up in other stuff... mostly logging statistics and earning a paycheck... In the hockey community, especially in Canada where there is no official allowance of sports scholarships and in the US where Canadian athletes almost never get half-scholarships due to their Canadian citizenship... Junior hockey, even at its lowest levels, is considered to be either compatible or higher calibre and higher in importance than College/University hockey (I'm not saying that Uni Hockey is unimportant -- but let's face it, a kid doesn't grow saying he wants to play U of G over his local Junior C club -- at least not where I'm from). This "Kiddie team" stuff has just got me thinking... Junior hockey teams are not and have never been considered lower in the pecking order than scholastic hockey... and this is a widely regarded belief in the hockey community. Junior hockey is to hockey as College sports is to Basketball or American Football. DMighton 01:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current guidline for living athletes is as follows:
"Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." These are paid athletes, and they play at a level equivalent to U.S. college teams. It makes sense then, that their teams would be notable too.
That's the current policy.
There is discussion about changing the athletes' notability policy to make it more restrictive, Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes), if anyone is interested in commenting. ColtsScore 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not a current policy. That is a current proposal. If accepted, I suspect it would only be a guideline, not a policy. -- JamesTeterenko 00:10, 22 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 in some form. Merge doesn't need AFD to decide. Petros471 12:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weathervane effect[edit]

Seems like a WP:NEO based on this paragraph: "This question is not usually discussed in texts, FAA documents, or by most flight instructors. It seems obvious when explained, but unfortunately most resources just state that a banked airplane turns." About 800 Google hits but very few seem relevant to this article. Metros232 14:32, 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 WP:SNOWBALL keep. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt[edit]

Speedy delete. The person clearly does not want an article. Don't vote keep, because you think the subject is notable, because that has nothing to do with it. Vote keep for a better reason than that. I will remove any keep votes that give notability as a reason. Gorsh 14:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The subject of an article gets 1 vote in an AFD just like everyone else. YOU DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE WHETHER YOU SHOULD HAVE AN ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA. The editors as a group do, not Bill Clinton, not Daniel Brandt. Brandt is notable enough to warrant inclusion. His opinion has no more weight than mine or yours or NawlinWikis. - Richfife 15:32, 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 no consensus; default to keep. Petros471 12:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skepta[edit]

Prod removed as "a poor quality article does not mean artists is non-notable". That aside I do not think this person meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (music). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:55, 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. Petros471 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Glanfield[edit]

Notability...reads like a vanity page...no sources KsprayDad 14:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=tim+glanfield&meta= there do seem to be quite a lot of varied entries for this author, especially in USA. Perhaps someone should add some links. (Unsigned comment by IP 87.74.71.64 -- this is also the IP which edits Tim Glanfield page)

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedman[edit]

One person's invented martial art, no evidence of notability, seems like self-promotion -- listing the person as well NawlinWiki 15:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a hoax, please do better research. --Masssiveego 10:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above made no attempt to email info@thespeedman.com or webmaster@thespeedman.com and ask which black belt magazine speedman was featured in, and disregarded the sale of speedman books in Amazon.com. It is recommand if the above would like to know, they should at try email, and assume "good faith". Which the email was listed on http://www.thespeedman.com/ --Masssiveego 05:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--NawlinWiki is continuing the pattern petty bothersome vandalism of in asking to delete articles with no assumption of good faith, and with no attempt to verify a website by asking it's author. This lack of valid research by Nawlinwiki shows that this article was put up for deletion in bad faith.

Pascal.tesson is equally wrong as if a email was attempted, they would have learned there was an article written about Speedman, as well as adversting, and posted such attempts for such information here as proof that the person was invalid. Google is not the only source of research that will verify articles that exist from a publication. As it's clearly obvious not everything is on the internet. Pascal.tesson should clearly have known that there are other valid sources then the internet itself. --Masssiveego 06:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This martial art style is not a hoax, it is valid, notable and it is real. Please do better research before making false accusations. As it's clear most who have voted here have done little to research the article other then using google. --Masssiveego 06:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contact information for speedman.

Telephone 

   541-535-3188

FAX 

   (541)-535-8038

Postal address 

   6252 Dark Hollow Way
   Medford, OR  97501

Electronic mail 

   General Information: info@thespeedman.com
   Sales: sales@thespeedman.com
   Customer Support: support@thespeedman.com
   Webmaster: webmaster@thespeedman.com

Doctor La Tourrette can be contacted at: docspeed@cdsnet.net 

--Masssiveego 06:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before the above style was covered by an article in "Black Belt Magazine." If you wish to know which article, please contact above. --Masssiveego 19:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dabbler could have made the effort to wikify the article and is welcome to edit it at any time. The subject it self is notable as more then 10,000 have heard or seen about speedman in blackbelt magazine. --Masssiveego 18:25, 24 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.--Ezeu 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John La Tourrette[edit]

Inventor of Speedman, see above listing; no other claims to notability NawlinWiki 15:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000718VW6/sr=8-1/qid=1150884164/ref=sr_1_1/104-9786587-7481568?%5Fencoding=UTF8 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0933764006/sr=1-4/qid=1150884257/ref=sr_1_4/104-9786587-7481568?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books http://www.thespeedman.com/text/credentials.htm Please do some research before listing anymore articles in the future. --Masssiveego 10:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contact information.


Please email the http://www.thespeedman.com/ or

Telephone 

   541-535-3188

FAX 

   (541)-535-8038

Postal address 

   6252 Dark Hollow Way
   Medford, OR  97501

Electronic mail 

   General Information: info@thespeedman.com
   Sales: sales@thespeedman.com
   Customer Support: support@thespeedman.com
   Webmaster: webmaster@thespeedman.com

Doctor La Tourrette can be contacted at: docspeed@cdsnet.net 

--Masssiveego 06:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More research links. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_La_Tourrette http://www.masterworksinternational.com/BBarchive/messages/549.htm http://www.avlispub.com/john_la_tourrette.htm

With all due respect, how can you hope to garner support by quoting (a) the very Wikipedia article you created and is up for deletion, (b) a single post on a message board that claims to be a phone interview with the guy but is absolutely impossible to verify and (c) the promotional page of one of his publishers? Pascal.Tesson 06:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is a wikiquote not wikipedia.

2. If you wish to verify it, please contact the above email addresses.

3. It lists some reason why he is notable quote from the webpage.

"Grand Master Dr. John M. La Tourrette is recognized as the nation's leading expert on Mind Training and Speed Hitting for martial arts athletes. In addition to his hit book, Mental Training of a Warrior, he has written for Soldier of Fortune, Black Belt, Kick Illustrated, Warrior, and Inside Kung-fu magazines.

He has written 17 other books in the fields of martial arts and Sports Psychology. He has also produced 247 videos in his field.

His BA is in Secondary Education and he is a certified High School Spanish teacher. He has a Master's degree in Business Management and his Ph.D. was earned in Sports Psychology.

He attended his first Silva course in 1980 and became a certified instructor in 1985.

He has been writing world class advertising copy for his own company, Warrior Publications Inc., since 1978, when he wrote his first best selling book.

In addition to his other achievements Dr. La Tourrette is a certified Trainer of Neuro-Linguistics Programming and is a certified Huna Kumu trainer." --Masssiveego 19:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how your rewriting does anything to support the notability of the guy. Still fails WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 17:51, 26 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/redirect to Santa Claus.--Ezeu 18:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho ho[edit]

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Helicoptor 15:00, 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 speedy keep. Please do not list articles for deletion that have been kept solidly within the last 6 months. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend[edit]

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Helicoptor 15:02, 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 keep. --Ezeu 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School prank[edit]

A whole bunch of original research. Also, we don't want to encourage the pranks by having an article on them, thus delete. Helicoptor 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • B y damaged do you mean the removal of all the utterly unverifiable cruft and leaving only the unverified but probably verifiable if anybody could be bothered cruft? Just zis Guy you know? 16:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-The Only Non-Brainless Person Around Here It Seems 26:48 24th June 2006 (Non-UTC)

  • Comment I see your point, but few mentally stable people on Wikipedia are likely to attempt terrorism, and people who do most likely don't have the technology. Spinach doesn't have a negative physical impact on people (you can joke, but it's true), and as for herpes, you can't really encourage a disease in that way, as nobody wants to catch it. Bullying, on the other hand, is probably practiced by hundreds of kids who may come looking to this page for ideas. Like I said on the talk page, I don't object to the encyclopaedic treatment of the topic, but I do think listing different pranks, complete with instuctions, is a bit much. Besides, the morality of an article is immaterial when most of the content is non-notable original research anyway. RobbieG 11:27, 26 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. --Ezeu 18:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skahead[edit]

No citations on this term. Checked various online search engines, haven't located a single hit on this term, aside from a username on various internet forums. Suspect original research, perhaps even a hoax? I can't verify it... -- Irixman (t) (m) 15:32, 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. --Ezeu 19:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P-1000[edit]

The information in this article seems to be unverifiable. It is assembled from four different web sites which contradict each other in various ways and have various factual inaccuracies. None of the web sites cite reliable sources. I went to the nearby university library today and can find no reliable sources about it. I was reluctant to list this at first, since I've heard of this tank, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that I've only ever heard about it from Internet tank fan sites, never a reliable source. Without a reliable source, the article must go, based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. My guess is that virtually no hard information exists on this design and everyone just keeps building on the story. TomTheHand 21:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add also as sources demonstrating the thing's existence this, and if anyone can get hold of this it could presumably be used as a source. The book Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945 would also presumably include something on P1000, since (apparently) it even includes details of the Midgard-Schlange project to build a 60,000 ton burrowing train.Hrimfaxi 09:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to use a "strawman distortion" to discredit Achtung Panzer. It is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Read it.
I'll see if I can find German Secret Panzer Projects. Until I do, I stand by my position to delete the article as it is based entirely on unreliable sources. If, in the future, someone gets their hands on a reliable sources, they can recreate the article based only on information found in those sources. Again, for goodness sake, read the verifiability policy. There's nothing to argue about here, no room for interpretation. None of the sources used to make the article are reliable according to Wikipedia policy. TomTheHand 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have, thanks. It says nothing that would disqualify a respected website with numerous awards as a reliable source. Hrimfaxi 15:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. Achtung Panzer! is a personal web site, not a published source.
Also see here. Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Again, Achtung Panzer is a personal web site and is not acceptable as a source. TomTheHand 15:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this: Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. It seems like a long shot but it's just possible that Mr. Parada migh turn out to qualify. --Saucepan 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how "acknowledged expert" is meant to be interpreted. Is it enough that assorted other amateur web sites consider his to be good, or are we talking about a higher standard of acknowledgement? Does he have to be generally acknowledged to be an expert by professional historians? I did some Googling, and George Parada seems to be well-respected on various web forums and stuff, but his presence seems to be limited to the amateur military history community on the web. I wish he had a bio or something on achtungpanzer. I'll try to look and see if he's written any books or anything. TomTheHand 22:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do see him credited as co-author on a couple of books. I'll look into that further. TomTheHand 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The books in question seem to be ~50 page light reading picture books. I don't think they establish expert status in any way. TomTheHand 19:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't live near a copy of Tanks; the Axis powers, but my nearby university library has The Spandau Diaries and Infiltration so I'll have a look at them either today or early this week. I hope this AfD will still be open; there have been very few participants. TomTheHand 11:56, 19 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:44, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oneselfism[edit]

Delete per WP:NOR. Prodded and immediately deprodded. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:56, 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. --Ezeu 19:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parents for the Online Safety for Children[edit]

This organisation does not actually seem to exist. The only thing other than references to the "press release" accusing Wikipedia of being run by paedophiles that Google finds is an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry, their homepage (http://www.theposc.com) does not seem to exist anymore, and the article was started (and pretty much completely written) by a user called PFTOSOC who does not have any other contributions. In short, the whole organisation probably does not exist at all and certainly does not deserve a Wikipedia entry. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You are correct. And looking at the cached entries on google from the site, their main target seems to be Wikipedia. It seems that we are rampant with pedophiles fishing for kids in a way that I can't figure out. Here is the cached site, seems to be linked with Wikipedophilia. Interesting stuff. Teke 03:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of", not "for", yes. Mea culpa. Errr, scratch that. I should drink some more coffee before responding so I actually understand what people are saying. ;) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:10, 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 delete. Although this needn't have been be brought to AfD, the discussion below supports deletion. --Ezeu 19:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero and First Order Holds[edit]

Zero-order hold and First-order hold should have their own separate articles. possibly linking to each other. both titles should have a hyphen in them. the information given for the FOH is technically inaccurate. someone soon can create a correct First-order hold article. r b-j 02:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I initially closed this article as a keep, since it sounded like a move was going to be done, which is something that does not need to be brought to AfD. Also, if any content is used in a new article, the old one must redirect to the new one to preserve attribution. I think that it has been cleared up that content from the article will not be used in any new articles. Also, keeping the article as a redirect is seen as confusing, since it would have to link to one of the pages but its title suggests that it has content on both topics. -- Kjkolb 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i do not plan to keep or use any content from the article in question. it will be about approximately the same topic, but when i create First-order hold (as soon as i get certain drawings to start it), it will not resemble the section of the same title of the article of issue now. i wish the original editor of this article would pipe in. i found his web page and sent him an email. maybe he will soon, but i do not know and i want to correct some of this soon. r b-j 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The old article should be a disambig page, linking to both articles. I think this AfD can be closed as Keep. --Tango
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you think it's good to keep. the article is not used by or linked by any other article. the content of the article should have been separated in the first place. the writing in the article leaves a lot to be desired. the original author (who would be the only person with an interest since no one else seems to even know it's here) is nowhere to be found (and i have e-mailed him directly). the "first-order hold" that he describes is about the most academic and worthless version of the FOH (i didn't even recognize the impulse response, but i did eventually find a MATLAB simulink reference to such an animal) and that FOH is incompatible with the piecewise linear drawing of an FOH output in the top graph. there was never a need for this combined article, it's mistitled (there are hyphens missing), it's poorly written, has technical error, i've already written the separate articles of the two different ZOH and FOH with accurate equations and illustrative drawings, also pointing out the differences between the different versions of FOH, no one has come to defend the combined article, it's not referred to by any article, and there is no stated reason for a disambig.. tell me, Tango, what is there to keep? and how did you draw any conclusion that there is a consensus to keep, thus closing as "keep"?
recently i was disappointed to see an article proof by verbosity delected. that article had more accurate content and reason to exist than this one. r b-j 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
one last note (for comparison): as i mentioned to Kjkolb, this is akin to an article titled William and Hillary Clinton. that should be a red link. it is about two different but related topics. they deserve their own separate articles. because they are related, it is appropriate to have each point to the other, perhaps in the ==See also== section. but it should be a red link as shold Zero and First Order Holds . if William and Hillary Clinton were to redirect, who should it redirect to? if it's a disambig that simply lists Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, it offers nothing. it has no reason to exist. r b-j 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested keeping any of the content - I suggested turning it into a disambig. I don't know the topic, but if they're never refered to as one thing, then the page can be deleted. Is there any chance of people linking to or searching for them as one thing? If not, then delete. --Tango 22:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i do know the topic, and my guess is that for every 99 times that someone, anyone is looking up zero-order hold, there will be 1 time that someone will look up first-order hold. i don't know of a single device that does the latter, but i will not say definitively that no commercial implementation of a DAC with first-order hold exists. i think they are generally unnecessary but make for interesting textbook material. i think there is no chance of someone looking up "zero and first order holds" without first looking up "zero-order hold" or "first-order hold". there are 75 hits on Google of "zero and first order holds", mostly WP and mirrors or of a single IEEE paper with that phrase in the title. the concepts are different but related enough that there should be links cross-referencing it. but, like Bill and Hillary, they're not the same thing. r b-j 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i have today received email from the original author (below). i think he means to agree or defer to my judgement when he says "Please go ahead ". can we delete this thing now? r b-j 02:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


----------
From: Arash Abadpour <abadpour@win.trlabs.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:59:31 -0500
To: robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com>
Subject: Re: Abadpour, i've been trying to get your attention at your	Wikipedia talk page.

Robert,
 Thanks for correcting it.
Arash
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> on 06/20/2006 13:10, Arash Abadpour at abadpour@win.trlabs.ca wrote:
>
>   
>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>     
>>> Will you go there and look?  There are problems with some pages you have
>>> created and I didn't want to go there and lay waste without contacting you.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Hi Robert
>> I saw your modifications. You are indeed a knowledgeable person in the
>> field. Please go ahead and thanks for your email.
>> Regards, Arash
>>     
>
> we might delete the "Zero and First Order Holds" page in favor of the
> separate pages.
>
> actually, i never heard of or known of the "predictive" FOH (you didn't use
> the term "predictive") until i started investigating the strange looking (at
> least to me at the time) impulse response you had for the FOH.  your top
> graph with linear interpolation was for a "regular" FOH that i previously
> knew about and i could tell that you would *not* get that nice linear
> interpolation with the FOH impulse response you had shown.  so, at first, i
> just thought your FOH section was simply wrong.  but it had the effect of
> forcing me to research the web and i *did* come up with some reference to a
> predictive FOH that had that weird impulse response, so i included that in
> the final section of First-order hold.
>
> thanks for getting back to me.
>
>
>
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Perry[edit]

Non-notable local politician Nv8200p talk 21:01, 13 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, W.marsh 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If membership to the city council is the item that makes this person notable, then the city council should rate an article. This article would include each member's biography. Only when a biography within the council article grows beyond the scope of the council should the person have his or her own biography article. In this case, we seem to have skipped a step by creating a bio for someone who amounts to a one-hit wonder. Rklawton 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has a link but still could be better. Eluchil404 03:22, 22 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. --Ezeu 19:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Trainer[edit]

Simply being a one-term mayor does not justify a biography. I posted this for SD, but an editor removed the tag without substantially changing the article. Rklawton 16:05, 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 (speedy) keep. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics (disambiguation)[edit]

There is no need for this page. I have put a disambiguation notice at the top of the mathematics article that says

For the hip-hop producer, see mathematics (producer). "Math" redirects here. For the monastic order, see Ramakrishna Math.

I think that is enough. "Math", in this case, is not the word "mathematics", nor an abbreviation for it. Michael Hardy 22:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now is linked to again and has 6 entries. —Mets501 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 16:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to make it so long. I suggest:
For other uses of mathematics and math, see mathematics (disambiguation).
Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me, though I would italicize mathematics and math. BigDT 18:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
add maths for the Commonwealth English-speaking world. John (Jwy) 03:01, 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. --Ezeu 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extenprise[edit]

5 billion nonnotable companies in the world, and they all want Wikipedia pages NawlinWiki 16:16, 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 Speedy deleted as CSD G4 and protected. Xoloz 19:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waffle boys[edit]

Recreation of a previously deleted page. Delete and protect from recreation Wildthing61476 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks aeropagitica, I was getting ready to post the link to that discussion. Wildthing61476 17:05, 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. --Ezeu 19:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Kline[edit]

Probable non-existent person, or article created of themselves. Google turns up only 32 items Skinnyweed 16:31, 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. --Ezeu 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason (WAD)[edit]

Non-notable game mod; prod and prod2 tags were removed without comment. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:01, 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. --Ezeu 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doobstar[edit]

Advertisement, prod removed without comment. There needs to be a speedy delete criterion for things like this ... BigDT 17:04, 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 Keep. Bear in mind that it isn't simply this young lady's finish that makes her notable, but also the controversy regarding her reinstatement. This latter point is largely unrebutted in the debate by those who favor deletion, and influences my reading of the consensus AfDs have next-to-no precedential value anyway, but this consensus emphatically says nothing about the general notability of non-controversial high-place spelling bee finishers. Xoloz 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saryn Hooks[edit]

This article was speedy deleted during an earlier AfD. A DRV consensus judged this deletion premature, and instructed that the article be relisted at AfD for a full debate. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:15, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Open International University for Alternative Medicine[edit]

Non-accredited school with 85 Google hits, probably an advertisement. Erik the Rude 21:35, 11 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:15, 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 merge to The Keys to the Kingdom Thryduulf 13:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nithlings[edit]

Non-notable outside a 3 year old fantasy series. Should be merged or deleted if the information is already contained in the main article. Crossmr 23:26, 11 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:22, 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. Thryduulf 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

danbooru[edit]

Non-notable online community? Jonny-mt 17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STATS:

[DANBOORU STATISTICS]:

The above are valid as of 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OTHER NOTABLES:

Of course, this all may be moot with the site owner posting about the possible closure in the last 24 hours, but I'd rather hear the thoughts of those better-versed than I in the workings of Wiki. Jonny-mt 17:33, 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. Thryduulf 13:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Boys (demogroup)[edit]

Relist per discussion on WP:DRV. Abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 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. Thryduulf 13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of cities outside Europe in different languages[edit]

I noticed the redlinked AFD - another user had listed it, but had not completed the process. This is thus a procedural nomination. That said, I can't see any use of this thing for the life of me, so delete but it if there is some compelling reason for this article that I'm missing, I would not oppose a speedy keep. BigDT 18:00, 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. Thryduulf 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke D. Moore[edit]

Delete as NN bio/vanity/autobiography. The article makes no substantial assertion of notability with the exception of an unsourced receipt of a collegiate award. The article was created by Tuesday 1pm Series, which has a strong correlation to a section of the article which states, "In his final year, he arranged the Tuesday 1pm concert series..." (emphasis added by me). The article has been tagged for speedy twice previously, with the tag being removed both times by a different user, Trio Sarabanda, whose only edits outside this article seem to be adding Luke D. Moore to various lists (List of 21st century classical composers and Postminimalism. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Guys- is this your job? How cool! Anyway, a few questions from the (admittedly carbon-based) composer himself: -what distinguishes between notable and undeserving of credit? -I make a potentially false assumption that none of you have produced a musical or literary work, but if this is true, what makes you qualified to assess the validity of entries such as this? -Wikipedia is by definition an encyclopedia, so on that principle would it not be beneficial to all to be as comprehensive as possible? Would anything other than that effectively be censorship and where is the line drawn? -How can the concise nature of the article be expanded to become more notable? NB. Tuesday 1pm Series and Trio Sarabanda are my successor in the role of Montford Scholar and an acclaimed violinist who will be performing the Violin I part of 'Moments' when it premieres later this year. In addition to this, Glass, Reich et al are not considered contemporaries- they were writing music when I was still in diapers! Thanks in advance, I find this all very interesting! Luke

  • Comment The article is not up for speedy deletion, this is the discussion regarding whether or not it meets requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Speedy deletions would have no such discussion. Failing notability standards does qualify the article for this process. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:36, 23 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 - no basis to delete. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butters[edit]

Just an unimportant character from some crappy TV show. Newspaper99 17:55, 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 speedy keep - no basis to delete. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy (Billy and Mandy)[edit]

Just a character from a crappy kid show that nobody cares about Newspaper99 17:52, 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 speedy keep - no basis to delete. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy (Billy and Mandy)[edit]

Just a character from a crappy kid show that nobody cares about Newspaper99 17:51, 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 speedy keep - no basis to delete. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bellsprout[edit]

Just a character from a crappy kid show that nobody cares about Newspaper99 17:53, 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. Thryduulf 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whil[edit]

Prod contested. Appears to be pure original research. Google produces no hits, there's no listing at wookiepedia. Additionally, the users involved in creating and editing this page appear to be inserting fiction about their upcoming fanfilm. Note the similiarity between User:Joriv Aneri Génnesar and User:Rod-Wan Déattrod and names on the list. Deleuze 18:16, 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 14:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annoo[edit]

Cites no sources, seems to consist mainly of original research. Even if it was true, it would pretty clearly fail WP:FICT - does every planet in the Star Wars universe get a page? Also, it looks like the users involved in creating this page are trying to insert information from their proposed fanfilm into wikipedia as fact. Deleuze 18:17, 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 14:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Nguyan[edit]

Although it has ((context)) and ((verify)), I can't find any information on "Juneland" - I think that it is a hoax and complete rubbish but do correct me and accept a humble apology if I am wrong, but I think that as it cannot be verified, it should be on AFD. Benjaminstewart05 18:03, 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 14:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity plays favorites[edit]

Sure sounds like a cut and paste copyvio, though I can't find the source article NawlinWiki 18:07, 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 speedy deleted by Fang Aili. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Drives The Weak[edit]

Delete as NN band. The article makes claims that they have played shows with various headliner acts, but without citations, I have serious doubts, especially considering that they claim to have formed in 2005 and to have performed with Tupac Shakur, who died in 1996. (P.S. What are Dolphin Cruises?) Bugwit grunt / scribbles 18:12, 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. Per nom, non notable advert. --++Lar: t/c 01:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia falls[edit]

Doesn't assert notability Benjaminstewart05 18:22, 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. Thryduulf 14:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mochila[edit]

And more corporate spam. Can we get a speedy tag for corporate spam? NawlinWiki 18:25, 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 14:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advent Rising Bounty Hunter[edit]

Contested prod. NN song, most of the article deals with the lyrics. By the way, I'm quite sure it's "resurget ex favilla" and not "resurget et favilla". No reference or claim of notability. Zoz (t) 18:44, 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 14:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Rephann[edit]

unnotable ackoz 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Surely we cannot keep on tha basis that it may be sourced in the future; since this AfD has not provoked sourcing how can we assume it ever will be? BlueValour 23:30, 25 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 speedied after author's blanking of article. BrokenSegue 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanabi (The Lion King)[edit]

Not notable fanmade character from The Lion King. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The article Kopa already mentions Tanabi at the end under trivia. Starionwolf 19:05, 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 keep. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost: The Journey[edit]

A previous AfD on this subject, closed as a keep, met with some controversy and was reviewed by DRV. A DRV consensus determined that relisting should occur for a variety of reasons, including a rewrite of the content. A second AfD also took place during the DRV, but was closed as being out-of-process, and should be ignored here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Google's list of unique results is constructed by first selecting the top 1000 results and then eliminating duplicates without replacements. Hence the list of unique results will always contain less than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms. For example, from the about 742 million pages related to "Microsoft", Google presently returns 552 "unique" results (as of Jan 9, 2006). Because of this, caution must be used in judging the relative importance of websites having well over 1000 hits. " (emphasis mine) --LeflymanTalk 21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, and I'll strike through that response. Nevertheless, I still don't think a clip show's notable. I wouldn't run a normal Lost episode article through AfD, or a character article (unless it was something like "Unnamed Extra #5 in Pilot"), but yeah, this at least merits community review. And the "Google test" is a little overused, in my opinion. But whatever. — Mike • 21:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that doesn't exactly answer the question that a Google search, irrespective of "unique hits," for "Lost: The Journey" and "ABC" yields 517 hits — and a high Google count isn't unsurprising given that "lost" and "journey" are commonplace English words. Any poem that has something like "Lost, the journey ended" or "Picard said, 'We're lost.' 'The journey's not yet over,' Troi replied." is going to yield one of the 27,000 hits your search produced. The ABC limiter yields a far more accurate representation of how many Google hits the program owns. — Mike • 17:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, with regards to the material quoted, I note the same page states, "More important than having many articles on TV episodes is having good articles on those TV episodes. Therefore, it may not be a good idea to create small articles on every episode of a television show." Furthermore, I see no header identifying whether the quoted material has the strength of an essay (no strength), guideline (medium strength), or policy (full strength). — Mike • 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps elucidate what is meant by "slathering on some OR"? --LeflymanTalk 04:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly knock off the hyperbole, sir — you're an admin and you should know better. I've not commented on just about every comment. I've tried to clarify areas where I didn't think justifiable reasons were cited for comment. As you've pointed out, quality of reasoning behind votes are counted moreso than headcount itself, and it seems to me that many of the votes here aren't properly supported by policy. — Mike • 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you view as hyperbole is what I view as calling attention to the fact that you're citing things out of context (for instance, citing one line from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes while skipping the very next line that completely undercuts your argument, for another instance, doing the same thing with the google test text) in what I view is a strenous effort to get this article deleted, no matter what the actual policy is, no matter what tactics you need to employ. I detest this article, I detest the entire Lost show, and I think it's silly to have individual television episodes carry articles except in very limited cases where they were culturally significant in a larger context, but the group that works on these articles has arrived at a consensus that clearly says individual episodes should not be deleted except in certain cases, which this episode (and if it's branded with the Lost episode badging, it's an episode, clip show or not) no longer, in my judgement, meets. Instead of fighting so hard this way, instead of doing out of process things (that second AfD you started WHILE the DRV was running, was way out of process, picking and choosing from guidelines as you have apparently done more than once here, is a bit out of process, policy wonking like you did in the DrV to try to get people's views discounted is out of process) to get this article to go away, why not work to get the guideline changed. I'd support that. But I find your contributions to this process not nearly as helpful or collegiate (you are quick to charge others are not assuming good faith while giving the appearance that you yourself are not assuming good faith, for example) as they could be, in my view. Your opinion may differ, of course. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have anything further to say to each other, Lar. I could, of course, claim that this entire long rant is one big personal attack, but then I'm sure you'd accuse me of citing that policy out of context, policy wonking, making unhelpful contributions, being a bad Wikipedia editor, and raping kittens. — Mike • 17:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, hyperbole is "extravagant exaggeration," and exaggeration is "to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth" or "to enlarge or increase especially beyond the normal." Given that I'm not responding to every individual in here, yes, you were extravagantly enlarging beyond bounds or the truth. The underlying point of your argument may have been what you then proceeded to rant about directly above, and how much that underlying point was hyperbolically stated is another issue, but your originating hyperbolic statement was what I was taking issue with. Really, if you've now been charged with enforcing Wikipedia's policies, you should be trying to embody such basic pillars and as WP:AGF, not laugh them off. 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that stating you respond "on just about every comment" is an egregious "hyperbole"-- I noted the same habit at a previous AfD you initiated, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Episodes_of_Lost_(season_3), where I pointed out that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says, "Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves." I'd further suggest that claiming others are making personal attacks against you, while you make statements such as those above isn't going to be looked upon too positively. In short, criticism is not a personal insult. --LeflymanTalk 17:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but (1) never said it was egregious, just hyperbole, which is "extravagant" in and of itself by definition; (2) I'm not writing the same reply to each and every person, and the cited comment you ask can't in any way be construed to cover replying to individuals to challenge the reasoning of their queries; there is indeed a line between criticism and insult, but it depends much on the motive. Saying to someone that they smell of elderberries could either be a criticism of their scent or an outright insult, couldn't it? — Mike • 17:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) "Egregious" is an adjective meaning "conspicuously bad or offensive" -- which is exactly what is being claimed about Lars' comments. Ironically, the notion of calling a criticism of one's AfD habits a "hyperbole" equivalent to a personal attack is in itself an "egregious hyperbole." 2) Repeated asking those whose comments you disagree with to justify their position is akin to making "the same comment multiple times". 3) As this discussion has veered off from AfD norms, I might suggest that if wikistress is getting the better of you, as it appears to have done recently, perhaps it's time to take a break.--LeflymanTalk 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your point no. 1, I'm claiming he's exaggerating the extent of my responses. That's hyperbole. With regards to the latter half of your point regarding calling someone's comments hyperbolic itself being an act of hyperbole, you're essentially saying I'm exaggerating his exaggeration -- that really doesn't seem to parse out as understandable for me. With regards to no. 2, I'm bringing up individual problems I have with people's responses — what metric they're using, misunderstandings of policy. In each case the responses vary, and are thus not the same comment multiple times. The cited portion of the guide in question can hardly be construed as interpreting the mere act of challenging someone's viewpoint as "the same comment." With regards to no. 3, were you someone who I felt had an objective viewpoint on, or benevolently meant opinion of, my behavior and actions, I would value your comments about my personal reputation and thus take your comments under due consideration. I do not believe our past interactions support such an opinion, however, and thus do not. — Mike • 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are giving the appearance, in my view anyway, of policy shopping, wikilawyering and attacking the messenger instead of paying attention to the message, I'm afraid. Your points have been made, though, and I suspect you've now pretty effectively undercut your own arguments for deletion when this one goes to close, but I could be wrong. You can have the last word here, I'm done, your words speak perfectly well for your approach without further comment being necessary.++Lar: t/c 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Lar, you're of course certainly entitled to your view of things. However, it's rather unkind of you to characterize a view you disagree with as "policy shopping, wikilawyering, and attacking the messenger." Ironically, such comments are in and of themselves attacks against the messenger and not the message, the very thing you suggest I have a problem with. As for your comments about my "approach," you may rest assured I do not exit from this process precisely enamored of your own approach, at least as demonstrated by the manner you have conducted yourself with this issue. — Mike • 21:58, 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. Kotepho 14:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobo Arbenz Vilanova[edit]

Former Guatamalan presedential candidate who only got 1.6% of the vote in the 2003 election. He has less than 60 google hits. -- Where 19:11, 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 14:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Adventure Remix[edit]

I don't see any evidence of a Wikipedia-quality article here. EDIT: Seems like it's total vanity too. Joewithajay 19:28, 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 keep (Liberatore, 2006). 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David McNamara[edit]

Originally prod-ed by Mindspillage with the comment - "not notable, had 15 minutes of fame online for saying hateful things on the internet. brief mentions on Fark and mefi != articleworthy" Tevildo 19:33, 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 Racial slurs may constitute encyclopedic topics; however, because of their sensitivity, they must be extensively referenced by verifiable sources before they can be included in the encyclopedia. There is a consensus here that this article does not meet that requirement. I will not merge and redirect to "list of ethnic slurs," but I will be happy to help any interested editor do so, if he or she comes forward with adequate reliable sourcing. Xoloz 17:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Pig[edit]

Delete. The prod was removed by article's creator, so it's being sent here. The article is a borderline dictionary definition about a Chinese slang term, and much of the article is in Chinese or barely salvagable English. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe he thinks the word means "1. To come down and settle, as after flight: a sparrow alighting on a branch. 2. To set down, as from a vehicle; dismount: The queen alighted from the carriage. 3. To come by chance: alight on a happy solution." [www.bartleby.com] Interlingua talk 02:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken your keep vote because you already voted in this discussion. --Danielrocks123 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at List of ethnic slurs it contains a number of such words or phrases that have been explained within the list itself. Most of them don't appear to have a standalone article. Tony Fox (speak) 17:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you are pathetic; give it a rest. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪
I'm sorry to inform you, since you apparently haven't read the above comments, that there are many justifications for removal of this article; and, so far, you are the only person who's arguing in favor of keeping this article. I commend you for your effort to try to save your article, and I mean you no disrespect; however, I'm doing nothing more than trying to uphold Wikipedia standards for articles, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm sorry to inform you, but the article (and your use of a newly created username to argue your point) is unacceptable. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪
Comment. All comments have been read carefully and responded to point by point. No one needs to "save" this article because it has the legitimate right to exist since it meets all the criteria of Wikipedia. I have not and do not need to use another user name to argue anything. We do not need a lot of people to argue for inclusion or deletion but we do need convincing and valid arguments. The simple fact is that there is nothing to argue about therefore no one bothers. You have stated that there are "many" justifications for removal of this article, but failed to point out which ones. Please avoid such empty talk and messing up the civil and orderly manner in which this is progressing. Kindly concentrate on material facts and avoid wasting time and resources of those concerned. Anyone can see that you are not interested in constructive discussion, therefore please excuse us. Again, we have yet to see any valid and convincing argument for deletion. The article should be kept.--Chungkwok 13:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In the absence of valid arguments, I suppose I would have to assume that and the reasons behind all these objections could lie in the embarrassment of having an article about this derogatory term in Wikipedia and the worry of the undesirable effects of mentioning the term. Could it be that some of these objections are to be from individuals exercising blind patriotism and raising objections about the article?

I suppose I would have address the concern of these individuals who might be uncomforatable with the derogatory term. People voluntarily come to Wikipedia to seek information about the term. That is what an online encyclopedia is for. I have to state the term is not being broadcasted to people on national TV new s or carried in newspapers or any other mass media. If "nigger", "coolie" and "Eurotrash" can have their own articles and people do not mind it, then why should we resist this article?

The term is not only in local newspapers. On the contrary, the term is being used everywhere from Hong Kong multi-cultural society to worldwide high governmental institutions including the respected state legislature of a major South East Asia country. Please see the external links in the article titled "Chinese pig slur used in state legislature". If that is not notable, then what is?

Considering that there appears to be no valid or constructive comments, it is time to end this debate. The article should be kept intact.--Chungkwok 07:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please note that comments have been moved to the bottom of the page so that votes can more easily be seen. Please still read the comments of other editors before voting, as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette Inner Earth

Note: Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. The discussion itself is more important than the statistics as stated in Wikipedia Guidlines: Consensus. Above appears to be an attempt by Inner Earth to force emphasis on the number of votes. It should be noted that the some votes are cast close to each other and that it is highly likely to be be originating from the same user using multiple names. --Chungkwok 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for moving the freestanding comments to the bottom of the page - I have since been shown the guideline I had missed. I have reverted myself and then added the only substquent comment to the bottom of the page. I hope everyone is happy with that action. (bit of a rookie mistke there...) Inner Earth 16:21, 27 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 14:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Y. Wong[edit]

Who is this person? Is this an autobiography? RelentlessRouge 19:01, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kottem[edit]

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia.

In fact there is a hamlet in Sint-Lievens-Houtem called Cotthem. No more than a circular road boarding on the Polbroek (which has also been turned into a metropolis as Polfbroekstraat). It was a hamlet of the village of Oombergen, which has been merged into Sint-Lievens-Houtem. Now, all that is already on the page of SLH. How can Sint-Lievens-Houtem, which has fewer than 10,000 inhabitants, harbour a hamlet with 39,070 inhabitants?

Of course, I can provide pictures of this circular road (I happen to live in the neighbourhood - it is nice cycling there), but somehow I think that even a letter by the mayor of Sint-Lievens-Houtem is not going to convince those people (are there really four of them?) who are prepared to create a parallel universe.

What I write here also holds for Eiland and Polfbroekstraat (actually a misprint for Polbroek), of course: only relatively unimportant streets in Sint-Lievens-Houtem!User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy pgp 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following pictures show what a great metropolis Cotthem now is. Unfortunately, the only economic assets of Cotthem, two special beer pubs and two good but pricey restaurants are not shown here: [30] The walk started in the centre of Sint-Lievens-Houtem, so forget the first picture, which shows the church of SLH (not that it has much of a big apple feeling, by the way). If someone thinks this piece of the world needs mention in Wikipedia, because it is so peaceful there (one of the quietest places in East-Flanders) or because the Romans built part of Cotthem (the street, I mean), or because there is still a bridge over what used to be a tramway track long ago, go ahead ... User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be allowed to use one of these pictures (the Roman soldier, for instance) in the article?
Luckily for you, it is not a Roman soldier, only a "monument" (to point out that the Romans built a street here, and no they did not build this whole street, only a small part of it) - so Belgian portrait right does not apply. Belgian copyright is at stake here - you will have to ask the municipality of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. But I'm sure they will think it such a good joke to make a Wikipedia article about this street that obtaining their permission will not be very difficult. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I figured it was probably a statue of a soldier, since there were no cameras in Ancient Rome/Belgium. I'll have to ask those folks about it. syphonbyte 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please realize that this is not an "area". It is a STREET running through green fields and an artificial wood. It does not "support" these pubs and restaurants, people from elsewhere come there (wonderful place to walk and cycle) to drink and eat. Just look up Cotthem 1 and then Cotthem 6 and Cotthem 9 in www.mappy.be (6 and 9 are the two pubs by the way) and you will see how far away houses are from each other. Basically it is a very quiet place which explains why people like to have a pint or a meal there. I did not know much about the street, I just looked on the website of the municipality of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. And I happen to understand the captions which appear when you hold your mouse on these pictures. And no, I am not going to add to an article which claims this is a city of more than 30,000 inhabitants, when every Belgian would find it a joke if it was in the Dutch-speaking Wikipedia - and we tend to put hamlets there which have fewer than 5,000 inhabitants. This street is not Wall Street. And no, I do not live there either (in case you are starting to think I am a nimby and want to keep it quiet). So my basic argument is: if you make an article about this street, you will have to make one about half of the streets in Belgium. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy---pgp 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That argument is not valid, you do not have to make articles about everything of comparable notability just because one exists. You still haven't provided a reason to delete the article beyond "it is a disgrace" and "this is a street," both of which are not reasons to delete an article. I still have seen no evidence beyond your claims that suggest that this is anything other than a town. syphonbyte 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you are defending articles about things you know nothing about, as has been shown before. You and your friends only started to look at what Gotem really is and introduce that into the article after the AfD was filed, even though you had had two years of looking into it before, but just couldn't be bothered. Now you are trying to do the same all over again here, and will probably on Eiland and Polfbroekstraat as well. While Gotem was, luckily for you, an existing, though small, village (even though it had nothing to do with the original nonsense article), you don't have such an easy escape here. Take a look at this ViaMichelin page, and click on the map to have a better look. You can see that Kottem, Polfbroek, and Eiland, are three streets around the market of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. These are thoroughly non-notable and have no reason at all to be included in Wikipedia. If one of them has even one interesting, encyclopedic fact about them, add it to the main article about Sint-Lievens-Houtem.
My question to you and The Raven is still standing: why did you bother creating, modifying, and defending articles about places you know actually nothing about and had no idea about their importance, notability, or whatever? Was the only reason that they somehow turned up in your search for words similar to Got'em and Caught'em (probably the "first battle of Gotem", since the recent one is described as the second one)? I don't mind that this all started as a joke, but it has grown very, very stale, and the little bit of respect you as a group gained by correcting finally the Gotem article is rapidly disapearing again. Fram 05:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly this is irrelevant, although I could take the time to answer this question, it has no value in this discussion. The point is an article was created about Kottem, and some of us believe it is a town, the others a street. The latter group vehemently advocate deletion, while the former group attempt to fix the article and make it truthful/verfiable. I have yet to see any usefull contribution to this article from those who advocate its deletion, while (surprisingly enough) they present such contributions only on these 'votes for deletion' pages. If I were to make an analogy, we are a group of workers attempting to erect a building, while a crowd of jeering kids shouts at us with insults and various demoralizing statements from below. The Raven 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That something exists is no reason to have it in an encyclopedia. It has to be notable. It is not. An article has to be possible that is more than a stub. It is not. If (a big if) anything of encyclopedic importance can be said about the street, add it to the Sint-Lievens-Houtem article.
Untrue, an article need never become more than a stub. Many articles can't become more than a stub but are still notable. syphonbyte 05:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. See e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents]: "City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally notable". If you can only make a stub from a street, then it is not notable. Furthermore, the current article lists nothing about this street that is true. Even worse, there is no street with this name, it is a typo in some database. I have not seen one textbased article (i.e. not a map) which says anything about this city or street, so why should I assume it exists and has any notability? Find me some information that shows it has notability and enough can be said about it to have an article about it. Until then, "Delete" is the only possible vote.
Beyond doubt it is notable, as User:Pan_Gerwazy has shown (in this very discussion!). If its a street then simply change the article. The Raven 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I chose a beautiful place to get my username form. Damn. It’s magnificent. Thank you for the images, Pan Gerwazy. Polfbroekstraat 08:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-comment The line above this is NOT by me, and is wilfully confusing. Note that this AfD is about Kottem, not Polfbroekstraat. One of this gang of four (perhaps the same one) also has a nickname "Gotem". So he was confused himself as well, I guess. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy --pgp 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that by now someone has re-arranged everything to make this apparent stupid attempt at impersonation disappear. Hm, why copy paste the adress of my user talk page, when typing Pan or pgp is so much easier? Of course it is rather difficult to do away with the other problem. That someone is confusing Polfbroekstraat with Cotthem - and therefore conceding that both are the same. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He wasn't attempting to impersonate you, he was thanking you for the images and had a link to your page to show that it was you that had shown the images. I don't really get what you're talking about in the rest of your comment, I assume it has something to do with the accounts Polfbroekstraat and Gotem, which belong to different people. Gotem is my account. syphonbyte 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course that's not by you, it's by Polfbroekstraat the user. And "Gotem" is me, I have always made this very clear, including on my user page where I highlight this. syphonbyte 02:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Polfbroekstraat (or the street Polfbroek if you will), is right near Kottem I think. Correct me if I am wrong.... The Raven 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get snippy Tuvic. Its just an online enyclopedia so dont get your panties tied in a knot. If its a street then just say its a street. I am sure there are plenty (to lazy to serach) street names listed in Wikipeida. Therefore KEEP.578 [[User_talk:578|(Yes?)]] 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice move, to not respond to my remark, but to go for the emotions. But, once again, please provide official information from the Belgian Government. --Tuvic 17:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I have to provide the link, I know this is true becuase I helped write it. How about you who me a link where you search for it and you cant find it. (578)
Strong argument: it's true because I wrote it. Ridicilous. If it's existing, finding official Belgian government info should not be difficult. But it does not exist, so no official information can be found. And don't try to reverse the roles here: you have to provide information is exists, not the other way around.--Tuvic 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is obviously not a hoax, we have even seen pictures of this. If it's not a town then change the article to reflect this. syphonbyte 00:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are a sockpupptet of Tuvic and then Tuvic is a sockpuppet of Farm. So you all are a bunch of sockpuppets that for some reason like to delete articles. You never know if some kid (lets call him little jimmy) is trying to find information on this subject and wikipeida dosent have it. Think of little jimmy and how hurt he will be 578 [[User_talk:578|(Yes?)]] 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sockpuppet, but a Belgian contributor for the Dutch Wikipedia. --Tuvic 17:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Prove it. (578)
Just follow the link at my userpage to the Dutch wiki. Or deliver prove that I'm a sockpuppet. --Tuvic 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would seem there is enough information to keep Kottem as a separate page.--Polfbroekstraat 03:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sig pains my eyes, whats wrong with just basic plain text.

Keep This article is a notable region of relative not unimportance thus it shouldnt not be undeleted. --Charlesxavier 04:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotem A credible vote. Thanks charles. --578 04:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lambiam has changed the page to the point where both the first sentence of my proposal and the "hoax" will sound rather harsh to newcomers to the page or this proposal. I note that under these circumstances the main argument for deletion will be that if you make an article about this street, you will have to make an article about at least half of the streets in Belgium. So if Lambiam's version will endure, the deletion is necessary because this street is not notorious enough - by far. Note that in the category "Belgian streets" Kottem has the company of only the E17, the E19 and the E40 - the disparity in notoriety is enormous.User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy

  • Comment Unfortunately, that's not an argument for deletion. The street is notable because it is a street; the fact that there is an article on it does not mean we must arbitarily make articles about all streets in Belgium with similar notability, it simply means that such articles would be allowed. It has been established on numberous AfDs that the standards for notability on Wiki are much lower than the notability of this article, and it is commonly believed that we should follow precedent. This is not the place to try and set a new precedent, and we are not the people to do it. You STILL have not given any real reasons to delete this article. Thus, the article MUST be kept. Case closed. syphonbyte 00:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, a street is NOT notable because it is a street. In fact, possible precedents have been dealt with already. From [31]: "Cities and shops:
Attractions and landmarks are notable; however, touristic information should be listed on WikiTravel
Bars, pubs, cafes and hotels should be listed on WikiTravel
Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size
Malls and shops are not generally notable
Suburbs (note for Americans: see suburb) should generally be listed under the city they're part of" (hm, since Gotem is a minor suburb of Borgloon ...)
No reason to include Cotthem as a tourist trap therefore, should go to Wikitravel. And about streets in the same article:
"Transportation and geography: ...
Highways and interstates are notable
Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not on a separate article
City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally notable"
So, CITY streets are CONTESTED. Sint-Lievens-Houtem is hardly a city - fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Delete. Since you said we should follow precedent, case closed indeed. [User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy]]--pgp 01:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If you knew this information, why didn't you put it in the AfD at the beginning? It's taken roughly a week for all of this to come out; the fact that Kottem is actually the road Cotthem and that it's non-notable. I was under the impression that it was a town and thus notable. If you'd pointed this out at first, perhaps I would have voted delete initially, as I did with Polfbroekstraat. I'm not in the business of keeping unneccessary articles; I'm in the business of defending articles from unneccessary deletion, which is what triggered all of this when somebody speedy deleted this and a number of other articles. syphonbyte 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Syphonbyte, two things: first, the fact that Kottem is nothing more than a non notable street was added to the AfD at the beginning: "What I write here also holds for Eiland and Polfbroekstraat (actually a misprint for Polbroek), of course: only relatively unimportant streets in Sint-Lievens-Houtem!" (last line of initial post to the AfD). So it has not taken roughly a week for all this to come out, it was there right from the start. Furthermore, you created the article: it is your responsibility to make it truthful. If you don't know anything about the subject (as you have shown conclusively on all the articles involved and the project), don't bother creating an article, and even less start contesting the deletion of it (speedy or not). As has been shown over and over again, this isn't or wasn't an "unnecessary deletion". It is you and your friends who are wasting everybody's time, not Pan_Gerwazy. Fram 07:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Syphonbyte, if your approach were correct it would be very easy to introduce non-notable items in Wikipedia. When you create the article, put some completely incredible stuff there. Make it a copyvio for good measure, with info that readers can use to google up a webpage from a credible source (the BBC or the EU) which also gives a link to the website where you stole the text. So that even after the AfD, someone who comes to vote for deletion, gets worried about the consequences for the Wikipedia project and starts correcting. After which the AfD quoting a hoax is in trouble. BUT even if it were feasible, there is still one little problem you will be faced with: neither Kottem nor Polfbroekstraat exist in the real world, where the official names are Polbroek and Cotthem. So, the hoax element basically remains. Fram, thanks for pointing that out - so I do not need to revert the changes in the article to the hoax. Saves me some time. Talking about losing time, someone does not know how far Gotem is from my house: User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy#Gotem. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 00:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no time or patience for your wild accusations, and I do not appreciate them. If you have anything constructive to add to the article, then please, do so. Otherwise I believe this case is closed. Delete. syphonbyte 02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in many countries, publishing a machine translation of someone else's text constitutes a copyright violation. To be fair on Syphonbyte: we are all convinced he did not really do that - he invented it all (see Talk:Eiland). And when he was found out, he immediately took the reference out. In spite of everything, for me Syphonbot and his friends are perfectly welcome to put Cotthem (and only Cotthem) in Wikitravel as a tourist trap. Unless they get blocked first, of course. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy --pgp 12:11, 23 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) 15:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polfbroekstraat[edit]

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia.

The truth is there is no such place. There is in fact one real Belgian google: [32]

Which by the way, also mentions the Polbroek, as the street is really called. The text gives a lot of "wegels" (paths, unaccessible to cars, and thus usually not mentioned on a road map) that connect the "Polfbroekstraat" to "Hoeksken". On the road map I use ("Stratenatlas van Vlaanderen - Guide des Rues de Flandre. Standaard Uitgeverij, ISBN 90-0-20614-3.") Hoeksken is a street parallel to Polbroek. For those who do not understand why Polfbroekstraat could be a misprint for "Polbroek": most streets in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium end in "straat" so incorrectly adding "straat" to a street name which does not have one, sometimes happens. And again, Polbroek also appears in this one Belgian Google.

The reason why it is obvious that Polfbroekstraat is in fact "Polbroek"? Well, at the point where a street called Espenhoek, coming from the South and going to the centre of SLH, becomes the Polbroek, there is also a road on the right: the almost circular road called Cotthem. And yes, Cotthem is another one of these phantom towns created (as Kottem) by the same people who created Polfbroekstraat, Eiland, and others. Note that both Espenhoek and Cotthem are marked as hamlets of the former village of Oombergen, and that Sint-Lievens-Houtem has fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. How could a town like that harbour three or even four metropolises with more than 30,000 inhabitants EACH?

Comment The article does not claim these are 'Metropolises'. It is clearly stated the population is taken within a 7km radius, as we lack a better figure. The Raven 07:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the talk page on Polfbroekstraat I claimed that the Polbroek began at the most southerly arm of the Cotthem with the approach road to Sint-Lievens-Houtem. This was based on a road map in book form quoted above. According to www.mappy.be (online road map of Belgium), this is wrong: Polbroek starts at the most northerly intersection. This makes the Polbroek even shorter.
This map and this one indicate what I mean. You can go South from the first one, or North from the second one to see the other intersection. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 21:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I can provide pictures of this road (as I happen to live in the neighbourhood - it is nice cycling there on a sunny day like we have now), but somehow I think that even a letter by the mayor of Sint-Lievens-Houtem is not going to convince those people (are there really four of them?) who seem prepared to create a parallel universe.

Comment Yes, there are 4 of us. syphonbyte 23:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I write here also holds for Eiland and Kottem (actually Cotthem, as I explained), of course: only relatively unimportant streets in Sint-Lievens-Houtem! User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy pgp 20:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course I cannot prove that something does not exist - how could I have photographic evidence of that? Since there is no such thing as Polfbroekstraat and the "place" in the area is a street called Polbroek (the only Belgian google is, I repeat, a misprint), it is going to be very difficult to prove that Polfbroekstraat is not a town. Except by default of course: how is it that such a big town as Polfbroekstraat is so strangely absent from all lists of Belgian towns, villages and hamlets? There are lists of postal codes, where everything that was once a village on its own is listed (they are on the internet) and Polfbroekstraat (or Polbroek) is again strangely absent. Talking about postal codes, where did you get the postal code mentioned in the article? The problem is, you see, that all postal codes in Belgium consist of 4 digits. Not five - like in France or Germany. I have just looked up 41063, of course. Nothing in Germany, some hamlet of Moenchen-Gladbach. But the French one is interesting: Couffy (renamed from Couffi in 1979). Seems like someone has been looking up the postal code of Cotthem in the wrong country. "Not stupid Frenchie, stupid Belgian" Hercule Poirot would have said after finding that one out. Stop inventing your own parallel universe and start writing real articles, I would say. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy
Comment I don't know why you keep referring to searches on Belgian Google, but on regular Google I get many results referring to the town/hamlet/city/cobblestone of Polfbroekstraat. syphonbyte 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I mean. Only one text made in Belgium. All the rest is either based on Wikipedia or on fallingrain. Just check "Polbroek" and note the difference.User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of results that are maps showing Polfbroekstraat. I have no doubts that there is a Polbroek, however I do doubt that it's the same thing as Polfbroekstraat.
Comment I'm only trying to represent a town/village/hamlet/populated area that I believe exists (and is supported by some sources). I have no clue who changed the postal code, I originally had posted a 4 digit postal code but was changed by 70.152.52.77. I will attempt to find the old postal code and replace it. Please do not make wanton accusations, we are trying to accurately represent a real place (to our knowledge). If you feel something is inaccurate, I want it changed as much as you.--The Raven 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the postal code is back to 3150 now. Funny, as that is a postal code from the province of Flemish Brabant. All East Flemish postal codes start with the digit 9. It was the postal code you first put there, and which is really the postal code of Haacht (famous for its beer, like the two pubs in the Cotthem). According to the history of the page, 70.152.52.77 first changed your postal code to 3840, which as we all know by now is a postal code in Limburg, and the postal code (surprise, surprise) of Borgloon (where this hamlet Gotem is situated, for which all this fuss was started in the first place). 3 minutes later the same guy goes for the French postal code of Cotthem but takes Couffy. Three minutes is not much to start looking up postal codes all over Europe, so he must have been in a hurry. Four minutes later the same guy turns Polfbroekstraat into a part of the municipality of Sint-Lievens-Houtem - the first time anything serious and more or less connected to the real world happened on this page. And after needing only 4 minutes for this horrendous step forward, he chose to go away and not to look up the Sint-Lievens-Houtem postal code, since he KNEW that he had put the postal code for Cotthem, and not the one for Polfbroekstraat? Sorry, this behaviour seems rather strange to me. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerning the pictures, its very easy to prove Polfbroekstraat doesnt exist. A simple trip to the coordinates specified by fallingrain and some pictures would prove it beyond a doubt. Otherwise, I agree fallingrain is inaccurate, but I doubt that they would be wrong about a 'population center'. Also I admit I have no idea as to the postal code, but the longtitude/lattitude coordinates are most certainly correct. The Raven 01:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many other sources which list the same information as falling rain. I have added some of them to the article for your viewing pleasure. Indeed, one can easily find many more that say the same thing by googling 'Polfbroekstraat'. Do you claim all of these sources are in error? I doubt this is the case. However, I would not rule out the fact that all these websites get their information from a single database. Indeed, it seems (from the link you provided) that there is a street called Polfbroek. This does not imply there is no town/cottage/hamlet/etc. called 'Polfbroekstraat', which exists as per the sources cited. The Raven 07:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, all these erroneous data seem to come from one database. Aren't you surprised that such a city cannot be found on any Belgian site, that no one can provide any info on it, etcetera? And don't ytou think that it is an incredible coincidence that Polbroek is located just next to Eiland and Kottem, two articles also made by you and your friends, and equally ridiculous? I still don't know why you or any of you have created and recreated articles about places you obviously know nothing about. It has been shown (e.g. with Gotem,which also started out as one of your silly articles) that the population numbers and so on given on fallingrain and all these other sources are completely unreliable Gotem dropped from 21000 on fallingrain to 282 in reality). Furthermore, the actual names of lpaces on these sites are equally unreliable, as you can often find many versions of the same name. Finally, it is up to you and the defenders of these articles to provide correct, reliable info. If you can't find a single Belgian site or article that gives us any info on Polfbroekstraat, if you can't show on ViaMichelin or another routeplanner where this city lies, then it is only worth deleting. if you want to try the effort you have done with Gotem to save it from deletion, namely start from scratch and turn it into a reliable, seriously sourced and informative article, be my guest. But you can't, as it is no city, village, or hamlet: it is the misspelled name of an unremarkable street. Fram 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though I agree with what you seem to suggest, I must say you misinterpret the list, I am afraid. Anyone who understands Dutch sees this is a list of "buurtwegen" (vicinal roads) which in 1843 ran between several points, hamlets or streets in the neighbourhood of SLH. The vicinal roads were probably just dirt roads, and most of them do not appear on the map today.
As for what they connected: Hoeksken for instance, is also a street, although it probably originated as a point or place or a farm, since it is the diminutive of "Hoek", meaning corner. Hoeksken by the way is a road that runs parallel to Polbroek, which suggests that there may have been dirt roads between those two, made by farmers for instance.
Oombergen and Borsbeke, however, WERE villages. Crapenijke was a hamlet. "Eiland" perhaps was not a farm either. It may have referred to the Eilandmolen (from 1480), which still exists today (it can be seen on the Internet) or the field to the NE of it. So, yes, you are right there, somebody got farms, mills (Eiland), fields (Cotthem) and streets (Polbroek) confused with hamlets and villages but not all those "points" were farms User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 20:30, 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 Delete (A3) by User:Gwernol, admin forgot to close. Eivindt@c 09:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HCW[edit]

Nonnotable "Backyard Wrestling" organization, total of 9 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 19:43, 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 usefied to User:Fraijo. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Fraijo[edit]

Delete as NN-bio. Could possibly be speedied, but there are some oblique claims to notability ("...he changed the way Santa Anita drafted there players for ever..."). Article was de((prod))ed by an IP user after som inconsequential edits. Userfying this page would be fine, but no reason to have it in the main article space.--Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:42, 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 speedy delete. WP:NOT for things made up in school one day.  RasputinAXP  c 19:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy (The Lion King)[edit]

No notablility, I can't verify the existance of this Lion King Character -- Starionwolf 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do beacuse I read it at lionking.org that fluffy exits according to the old scrpit Fluffy is the name of the cub. so I say keep the article.- Mrsanitazier 19:49,19 June 2006 (UTC
  • Please cite some sources to comply with Wikipedia's polices Thank you. --Starionwolf 19:48, 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 No consensus to delete, you can talk about making it a dab page or redirect on the talk page. Kotepho 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presiding Officer of the United States Senate[edit]

There is no such office. See talk page. John Nagle 19:43, 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 Keep There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious. Xoloz 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiaki Omura[edit]

This article was previously nominated for deletion, and consensus was reached that it was notable as an example of pseudoscience. Subsequent editing toward NPOV, however, has resulted in the elimination of any explicity pseudoscience reference in the body text as well as in an article which is lengthy and presents a fairly elaborate description of these dubious 'procedures' which in my judgement might be misconstrued, and which has actively engaged a proponent attempting to render the article a pro-Omura/BDORT piece in the name of neutrality – as well as the valiant efforts of another editor to maintain WP standards. The very lengthy discussion seems to have resulted, in my judgement, in little more than stalemate, with the question of the article's grounds for notability, now that the pseudoscience aspect has been relegated to the margins, now open. Effectively, the only established NPOV cite is that of the NZ authorities. It is unclear to me if this is sufficient to justify an entry, and I would like to throw the question to the community for consideration. TealCyfre 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • An entry must be notable solely on the basis of verifiable independent sourcing.
  • When limited to such sourcing the only acceptable information we have for Omura and his armamentarium is limited to a patent on record and another on application, and the en passant establishment of the NZ Tribunal in the case of Richard Gorringe that PMRT/BDORT/Applied Kinesiology are without scientific basis and therefore an unacceptable modality of treatment. TealCyfre 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear TealCyfre, please be advised that it is considered unethical and/or bad form for the nominator of AfD to add his/her vote below, as the very act of nominating normally constitutes a vote. It is acceptable and quite common for the nominator to follow up with relevant comments below other people's votes, which you have obviously also done. I leave it to you to cross out your vote above. This relocation by Philosophus is also acceptable. Now to your specific points:
  1. Notability and proper sourcing - we are all in agreement, I think, every single one of us here.
  2. Specific notability here: please review again the 6 points I raised above, per your request. You may not agree with my opinions, but you seem to ignore 4 other points at least.
If I may add my own summary here: Dr. Omura claims to have created a simple technique whereby it is possible to easily diagnose/cure most/many diseases that afflict mankind, which he calls BDORT. Apparently Richard Gorringe, a medical practitioner, used this technique on some patients in NZ, to the exclusion of conventional medicine. He was brought in front of a Medical Disciplinary Tribunal which reprimanded and fined him, and specifically concluded that BDORT (which it called PMRT) was 'ineffective' and 'irresponsible' to use[34]. Yet, it seems (based on reliable sourcing) that BDORT is still being promoted around the world, for example by the New York Academy of Medicine[35][36]. Also, at least one BDORT article appeared in the peer reviewed Medical Acupuncture journal [37]. Dr. Omura has multiple impressive [38][39] medical credentials obtained at major US institutions according to his CV. This is a clear case of notability of both Dr. Omura and his BDORT technique. Establishing notability does not imply judgment of merit of Omura or BDORT. In fact, by prominently displaying the NZ Tribunal's result, WP is clearly showing the only mainstream's assessment of BDORT. But one can't just wish something one disagrees with away - the item's notability must be assessed objectively, and then, assuming it rises above the required notability level (which I believe it easily does in this case), it is WP's editors mission to present a neutral and well sourced version of it. I think what we have now is actually pretty good, and if anyone can suggest ways to improve it please do so. Crum375 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the situation on nominators adding a vote is more confused - while some people say that doing so is bad form, the Guide to deletion actually says that doing so improves the clarity of the discussion. I have seen a few AfDs where the nominator has been neutral, so I can see how it could help, but adding it to the bottom like this detracts from the clarity, so I have moved it to the top. I usually put an explicit statement of my position somewhere in my nomination when nominating something for AfD. --Philosophus T 12:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. I think all would agree that adding a nominator's vote at the bottom of the discussion may create an appearance of an extra vote. Having a clear vote (or neutrality) along with the nomination is fine. The way you moved the nom's vote here is OK with me. I have fixed my comment above. Crum375 12:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm perfectly content to stand on the sufficiency of previous statements and will leave judgement to others in the community. TealCyfre 04:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
. . . and wider judgement, though not likely in so minor a matter as this re Omura, to the fullness of time and the wider world. TealCyfre 05:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these credentials fail to establish notability, then I may need to recalibrate my notometer. Yes, he and BDORT may not be accepted by the mainstream, but that doesn't change the fact that he edits journals, hosts symposia and delivers courses, all promoting his BDORT and related concepts, some held at mainstream institutions. Crum375 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem, here, though, is sourcing, as you've said yourself in discussion. The bio info you cite is sourced to Omura's site, not independently verified, as is also the situation for the claims of use. Even if it were verified, which it isn't, the bio info itself doesn't likely rise to the 'professor's test' of notability simply because the fellow self-publishes his 'international journal.' The mainstream institution you cite is simply listing a 'conference' in a local hotel – it isn't actually hosting or sponsoring it at all – which is the case for many of its other listings. We seem to have no verifiable sources for claims of widespread use at all – only vanity sources, hence the notability issue. This seems to leave the Omura entry in verifiable form dependent solely on the NZ commission and its ruling re Gorringe – for both of whom we have already appropriate short entries. If WP presents claims of widespread use, etc, not independently verified, it seems to me there may be issues at a number of levels. TealCyfre 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reference to BDORT is not self published to my knowledge. The publisher also claims peer review (see item 9). We know that it was used in NZ since the practitioner using it got punished. Dr. Omura's seminars, though not directly promoted by mainstream institutions, can be viewed as accepted by them (to an outside observer) by virtue of their being publicized on their Web site. As far as the WP:BIO notable professor test, I would think that holding multiple international symposia and courses promoting one's technology would suffice, but being listed in: "Who's Who of American Inventors, American Men and Women of Science, Dictionary of International Biography, Men of Achievement, International Who's Who in Community Service, International Who's Who of Intellectuals, Who's Who in World Medicine", assuming we accept the veracity of this claim (we are encouraged to accept this per WP self-bio guidelines until proven otherwise unless it is controversial and the bio info per se is not, to my knowledge), would also help notability claims. Crum375 19:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who's Who is not a verifiable or reliable source, nor a reliable indicator on notability. This was discussed some time ago, and I can't find the discussion. Those publications, if I recall the discussion correctly, create entries based on information given to them by the person in question, who pays in exchange for the entry. --Philosophus T 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I researched Who's Who some more after posting that message and I tend to agree with you that that specific part of Omura's resume does not verifiably connote notability. Crum375 21:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m concerned that WP, in the name of NPOV, may be used to promote for-profit dubious activities, verifiable only through paid placement and vanity self-publication, and may, to boot, inherit potential liability issues as a result of so doing. Your first cite is not self-evidently self-published, but you yourself have consistently argued in discussion against its acceptability since the author of the article is not an MD, but only, so far as anyone can determine, holds a PhD in Sports Medicine, and refers to its being ‘triple-blinded’ because three people in physical contact with one another avoided eye contact. If this is ‘triple-blinded’, heaven knows what ‘peer-reviewed’ means in their usage. As to the professor test: A near infinite number of academics and MDs attend and/or host various seminars, and yes, in the modern world they are very often ‘international.’ They are not, in my understanding, per WP criteria deemed notable. We have nothing, other than the promotional claims of Omura’s own two sites and their echoes, to vouche for attendance, extent, etc – and these are promotions for money-making activities which WP, if it is not exceedingly careful, may fall into the trap of vouching for and promoting in my estimation, which could create non-trivial exposure in the event of another Gorringe-like incident occurring. All the various listings you present, in addition to being non-verified, are to publications which simply list anyone who pays to be listed. Hardly confirmation of notability in my estimation, and arguably evidence of vanity combined with non-notability. TealCyfre 20:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My critique of the Shinnick article had to do with the validity of its technical assessment of BDORT as a medical technique, not with its being a neutral source that seems to show that BDORT exists outside of Omura's publications. Hence the 'triple blindedness' is not an issue, as the scientific credentials of the author are not established. As for WP inadvertently promoting a scientifically unproven technique by its NPOV stance, I believe that by simply neutrally presenting the facts as we see them in the public domain, and including a reference to pseudoscience, quackery and alternative medicine in the 'See Also' section, we would be safe. It does mean that we have to be extra careful to be as neutral as possible and present the relevant sources with appropriate weight. For example, all Omura's related Web sites and publications count very little for our purposes, as they would not be considered neutral. The NZ document would get a lot of weight by virtue of its neutrality as well as the credentials of its experts. As far as the professor test, IMO there are not a lot of professors who actually organize and hold multiple international symposia, while promoting their techniques or inventions. I agree that we have no hard proof as to attendance figures, but there are some abstracts and I would have to assume that at least the authors attended. Crum375 21:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A problem here, at least with the article in its present form, is that it scrupulously avoids any such usage in the text so as to avoid use of any such 'pejorative' or 'offensive' language, under the reasoning that such use would violate NPOV. TealCyfre 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but as dicussed in the Talk page, having Alternative Medicine, Pseudoscience and Quackery in the 'See Also' section allows the reader to understand the issues better and reach his/her own conclusions. This is very different from actually calling it pseudoscience etc. where WP would be expressing an opinion, which is an absolute taboo. Crum375 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see this as a trap. If WP policy requires that any such characterization be relegated to effective afterthought status it leaves the entry vulnerable to use as a promotional tool of adherents when, in fact, its only claim to notability is its status as quackery/pseudoscience. In addition to the inaccuracy this would represent it may also present potential problems down the line if claim is made that WP, despite standard disclaimers, allowed itself to be used to promote these activities. TealCyfre 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP's mission is to neutrally present well sourced information about notable topics. We really should separate notability, which allows us to continue, and the neutrality of the presentation. Assuming we meet the notability burden, which I think we do, the issues of how to present the topic fairly and the weights to assign to each source need to be addressed and agreed upon by consensus, which is what we try to do. Crum375 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disclaimer really needs to be up top in the overview. There are various organizations that publish guidelines for spotting pseudoscience, perhaps an appeal to the guidelines could be included in the overview without violating NPOV. - Wickning1 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I think the article in present form is acceptable (barely) from the NPOV standpoint, but there do seem to be big notability problems - no evidence that anyone notable even knows of the procedure, other than a disciplinary board (and us, haha). No evidence of being notable even within acupuncture or pseudoscientific circles. A job at a university, a self-published journal, and a bunch of self-hosted events with unknown attendence don't meet WP:BIO professor guidelines. The only evidence I can find of notability is that New York accredited his talk to count toward a special acupuncture certification (would not help fulfill general continuing education req's). So I changed my vote. - Wickning1 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say you see "No evidence of being notable even within acupuncture". Well, this reference is in a "peer reviewed" Acupuncture journal. I have problems with the technical merits of the paper, but the issue here is notability, not technical merits. Then this reference shows that a mainstream institution is publiczing Omura's seminars about BDORT. I think BDORT and Omura are adequately notable even without any of Omura's related sites. Crum375 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that is something at least. Still doesn't imply much notability, but at least someone else read his papers. I'll stick with weak delete for now though. - Wickning1 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to bear in mind, Wickning1, that we are talking about someone having a single cite in a single journal, once, and this in an article written by someone who as best we can determine is a PhD in SportScience, who once was in the Olympics, and who makes a living promoting this stuff. The other example of 'notability' given here is that in a long monthly listing of seminars/meetings presented, Omura's, held at a local hotel, is on the list. If these make Omura 'notable' then 'notable' has a pretty low threshhold, or so it would seem to me. By these criteria I would think nearly every physician and college professor would manage to qualify, and it is explicit WP policy, as I understand it, that the threshhold simply isn't that low. TealCyfre 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, various doctors in the NZ tribunal seem to vaguely reference a variety of articles which, if found, would solidify PMRT/BDORTs notability. For example, there seems to be a claim that there were double-blind tests published in peer-reviewed journals which found the method to be ineffective. Why can't we find any of these? --Philosophus T 23:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would agree that perhaps the 'standard disclaimer' is insufficient as people may be inured to it. Also there may be too much detail describing the various modes of the invention. But we do need a fair presentation of what's there, with language clarifying that the only assessment we have by the mainstream is the NZ report. Also, if I may ask, would you mind leaving the current version intact until we finish discussing it and until we reach some consensus? Thanks, Crum375 21:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... 19 minutes later you told me my newer edits were acceptable, so I assume that that comment supercedes this one?
  • I'm in effective agreement with Philosophus on these issues. I'm strongly inclined to the judgement that if any article at all is appropriate with respect to the NPOV issues, it must be very short, as I had suggested earlier. It may be that given the practical problem of finding enough people who care to maintain the article against supporters re-expanding it to another advertisement it is most appropriate to delete. I sincerely haven't a firm final judgement in this as yet, and I'm open to argument, but I think there are real problems here. TealCyfre 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the issues of length and notability are independent of each other. There is no WP policy that says that article X may be included only if it can be kept to Y words or less. If anything, we have the 'WP is not paper' policy that almost encourages us to provide extra detail. The primary and critical issue for inclusion is notability - do we have it or not - if not - forget the rest. If yes, then the only constraints are neutrality, verifiable sourcing, due weights, good style etc. Your concern about letting WP become a platform for promoting unproven science will be addressed by properly following the above guidelines. Crum375 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also believe that the article's size doesn't have too much influence on the POV, as long as it does not become a long rant which no one but a supporter can understand enough to edit (like Modern Galilean relativity). --Philosophus T 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I see the core issues as two-fold: 1) Notability, per se, given the fact that there are entries for Gorringe and the NZ commission. 2) The probability, given scant awareness of the existence of Omura, that an entry provides a point of entry for adherents devoted to the creation of an advert to further 'legitimize' their process, which, to further compound the practical problem, may present WP with legal exposure. TealCyfre 22:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if 'legal exposure' is a criterion, WP might as well steer clear of any controversy, or just fold up tent. The correct approach is to decide on notability, and if it exists, write a good article per WP policies of neutrality, good sourcing, due weights, etc. The 'threat of the zealots' is part of the WP process for many articles, and so far WP has managed just fine. See also the Talk page. Crum375 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid my understanding diverges here. My understanding is that WP policies do indeed consider potential legal exposure. Perhaps I'm in error. In any event, what, given the fact that the Gorringe entry exists and the NZ Tribunal entry exists, is the notability justification for this entry, really? Verifiably, we have objectively scant evidence even of its existence. What we have evidences yet another deluded fool or charlatan promoting himself. As I understand it these don't rise to notability simply because they were referenced by the NZ tribunal in the case of Gorringe. Everything else we have on Omura is Omura's self-promotion and self-publication or that of his presumably tiny band of followers with no meaningful evidence even of their existence aside from self-promotion other than the passing quasi-advert for a meeting. How is this notable? TealCyfre 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not saying legal exposure is a non-issue for WP. Like any organization or individual, especially in today's sue-happy environment, one has to tread carefully. Having said that, the mere fear of exposure if we address sensitive or controversial topics should not paralyze us nor thwart our mission. If we handle each notable topic while carefully adhering to WP's policies of neutrality, reliable sourcing, due weights, etc. we should be on safe ground with any future jury. As far as notability in this case, the fact that some components related to Omura/BDORT have been explained in separate articles would not detract from the notability of the Omura/BDORT. We possibly would want to merge items (e.g. Gorringe, NZ Tribunal) but I doubt it. I think Omura/BDORT is the primary focus we currently have for the other articles, and believe we have more than enough reliable and neutral sources to establish Omura's/BDORT's notability. Crum375 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are they, then? TealCyfre 23:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off the top of my head, here are some important ones:
  1. Shinnick article (BDORT in non-Omura publication)
  2. NZ Tribunal report (neutral, tech assessment of BDORT)
  3. Omura CV (allowed to be his own Web site at this point)
  4. Omura BDORT seminars publicized by New York Academy
  5. Omura BDORT patent (neutral, describes the procedure)
  6. Omura Legal Precedent for RICO misuse (neutral)
I probably should stick in the links, which are all in the article. Let me know if you need them here. Crum375 00:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see these as likely proof of Omura’s and BDORT’s existence. I fail to comprehend how they rise to even the lowest level of notability.
1) The Shinnick article is an article by a non-MD in an alternative medicine journal. We don’t, so far as I know, have an entry for every professor whose work has been evaluated or referred to in an academic journal – once.
  • The issue is not if we have an article for each such case but whether such a situation is notable per se. It seems to me that that publication adds credence to the existence of BDORT and to the fact that it was published, at least once, in an academic journal. My opinion is that once it is so published it becomes notable by WP's definition of the word. It does not have to be a house-hold word. And the fact that Shinnick is not an MD has nothing to do with notability. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2) The NZ report does not vouch for notability of BDORT per se. It addresses the utter lack of scientific credibility for BDORT. In any event, there is an entry for Gorringe, and the commission’s report, which had an effect in altering policy re alternative medicine. These are notable, to at least some degree. Omura/BDORT, however, are only established as references, not as notable in and of themselves. Indeed, the commission simply treats them as insignificant variations on the theme of applied kinesiology.
  • The NZ report is read within NZ among practitioners and others. It is a neutral highly qualified publication. Certainly its readers would know about BDORT (or PMRT in their case) after this report came out. Yes, it does not focus on Omura - the focus is on BDORT/PMRT. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3) Omura’s CV is notable only if he is notable, which has not been independently established. Anyone can write a CV, say anything they want, and put it on the net on a couple of sites which they control.
  • Very true. Anyone can write anything on the Web. But this is Omura's Web page and WP policy is that we allow wide tolerance to a person's bio on his own Web page unless some fact is contentious. If you disagree with some fact on his page, please speak up. And yes, alone this would not be enough, this is part of the larger package. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4) ‘Publicized’ is a dubious term. The Academy has a listing. You will note that it is no more than that. They have many listings for many things. Are they all notable by virture of their having been listed?
  • It is the Academy's official Web page, with their official course schedule. The other 'things' they list are also courses. This proves BDORT is publicized (i.e. published to promote participation in a course) by a mainstream institution. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5) There is a patent. There are many patents, and claims of notability based on existence of a patent are routinely deleted from WP as non-notable.
  • True. Mere existence of a patent per se would not establish notability. In this case the reference is used to describe the procedure in a neutral site and show it exists outside of Omura's domain, and that the US government at least looked at it (with obviously no merit claim). BTW, lots of people read all newly issued patents which are published in a gazette by the USPTO. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6) Omura was so far as we know not directly involved in the Heart Disease Research case you reference. Granted, he is on evidence of self-published sources the Director of Medical Research of the Heart Disease Research Foundation. I fail to see how this establishes his notability.
  • I believe these are your own words (please correct me if I am wrong):

The Heart Disease Research Foundation, of which Omura has been Director of Medical Research since 1971,[19] in 1972 sued General Motors on behalf of all citizens of the United States affected by pollution from General Motors, seeking substantial actual and punitive monetary damages to be awarded to its research activities.

if this is wrong, then it needs fixing, I guess. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not wrong, in that it is an accurate statement of fact. The statement that Omura is Dir Med Rsch HDRF is verifiable so far as I am aware only via self-published sources. Nor does it constitute evidence of notability for Omura and his armamentarium. It was originally part of a separate entry for HDRF which was conflated with this entry. TealCyfre 02:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Omura bio on his own Web site claims that he is the "Director of Medical Research" (DMR) of HDRF, then as I understand WP policy for bio info on one's own Web site that information is allowed (properly sourced to that Web site) unless there is any opposing claim, in which case more investigation (i.e. better sourcing to resolve the conflict) would be needed. Are you aware of any claim that Omura is not the DMR of HDRF? And as far as notability, if we accept that he is/was in fact DMR of HDRF when they took on GMC 'on behalf of the people of the USA', and created a legal precedent in the process (for which we have a separate and valid reference), I would consider that another chunk of notability. Crum375 02:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability question comes first, in my understanding. If Omura is not notable then other questions are moot. So, then, this other bit of 'notability' consists of his having, according to his own CV, been Dir Med Rsch of the HDRF at the time of a baseless suit that established precedent in that the courts preferred in future not to have to trouble themselves with going through the motions of dismissing suits which didn't even attempt to establish their basis? You will note that the HDRF itself was effectively judged non-notable when its independent entry was folded into that of Omura. Now we have the spectacle of that entry, having been established as non-notable, constituting evidence that Omura is notable in the absence of other established basis for establishing his notability. This seems to me the sum of infinitesimal evidence amount to nothing more than the sum of infinitesimal evidence, sorry if I'm not persuaded. TealCyfre 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the suit was 'baseless' is not an issue. The issue is that it created a precedent which was subsequently cited in the Bonano Organized Crime suit, where Omura/HDRF was used as precedent. I doubt that your average run-of-the-mill frivolous suit reaches that level of notability. Whether some previous discussion considered HDRF and its suit to be sufficienly notable on its own to justify its own article is immaterial here. We are relying on this lawsuit to add more notability to the Omura article, and yes there is a cumulative effect, but my suspicion is that if you spend some time (as I have) reviewing and voting on AfD's, you'd discover the WP Keep bar is set much lower than you seem to think. Crum375 03:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but for my part I fail to see how these rise to the level of notability. Gorringe is notable, his cases having in part prompted further clarification/revision of NZ codes of practice, as is the NZ commission and its successor commission, which are intrinsically notable. You will note that while press coverage may be found of Gorringe, there is none of Omura or BDORT in connection with the case, further suggesting their lack of notability. Omura is not on my considered judgement notable on the basis of the NZ case, which in the course of addressing Gorringe's defense duly consults expert witness and then dismisses Gorringe's PMRT and Omura's BDORT upon which Gorringe asserts his PMRT is based as utterly without claim to scientific merit of any sort, as simply another variant of Applied Kinesiology. This would establish via objective sourcing Omura and BDORT's claims to validity as spurious were they notable, but they do not in my judgement establish notability. The listing of seminars simply fails the professor's test in my judgement, and thus fails to establish notability. TealCyfre 01:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The listing of seminars does not apply to the professor's test. It applies to the notability of BDORT as a procedure, since there is a course delivered on it, publicized in the official web site of a mainstream academic institution. It does connote some notability to Omura, but that is not the thrust of that reference. In the NZ case, again, it is the BDORT/PMRT procedure that became notable, as it was allegedly used in lieu of conventional medicine to the detriment of a patient's best medical care, and the practitioner was disciplined and fined. This connotes notability to the BDORT/PMRT procedure as well as the practitioner. Crum375 01:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I presume you feel every comparable listing of every comparable seminar is notable by WP standards. This would mean every topic treated in every seminar listed in a publication.
  • Gorringe became notable. I see no evidence that it raised Omura or BDORT to the level of notability. If so, where is that evidence? TealCyfre 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The seminar listing of a course given on topic X, publicized on the official web site of a mainstream academic institution, connotes notability for topic X, especially if topic X is claimed to diagnose/solve many/most of mankind's diseases. PMRT became notable by being cited in the final report of the NZ tribunal, as follows:

    "We therefore accept that PMRT is not a plausible, reliable, or scientific technique for making medical decisions. We find there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity. It therefore follows that reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognized diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible." (Tribunal Findings, para 363)[40]

I would respectfully submit that a published report by an eminently qualified medical disciplinary tribunal, that considers use of a procedure "unacceptable and irresponsible", makes that procedure (PMRT/BDORT) notable. I suspect that this was the reason the case was publicized by the Tribunal (note that some cases are kept confidential). Crum375 02:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The seminar listing you cite simply lists 'Acupuncture and Electro-Therapeutics in Clinical Practice' as description. There is no further description whatsoever. Are you seriously advancing the argument that this constitutes notability?
  • If you look up the contents of one of the 2 Omura seminars publicized on the Academy's Web site, e.g. here you will note it includes BDORT. So I would say that if someone publicizes a symposium on a mainstream academic institution's official Web site, that would make BDORT, a featured sub-topic of the symposium (note the illustration), and most likely Omura, notable. Crum375 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your 'suspicion' is unfounded and irrelevant as to notability. There is no basis in fact to the assertion that the tribunal publicized the case. The tribunal may if it chooses elect confidentiality, if requested. We have no reason to believe it was requested. If Omura/BDORT were rendered notable by the case, where is the evidence? TealCyfre 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't read the Tribunal's minds, but if they elected to publish their report on their publicly accessible Web site, I think a reasonable person would conclude they intended to publicize it. In any case, having been publicized in that official site, the procedure, which features prominently in the report per above, becomes notable. Crum375 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know the very fact that, evidently out of interpretation of NPOV, this article can't be labeled clearly as pseudoscience or quackery, which, as an infinitely shorter entry, it was initially. If it can't be, and there is no clear overwhelming evidence as to why it rises to the level of notability I don't see any basis for its existence. TealCyfre 23:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read this report briefly summarized in this section, which will hopefully answer your question. We also include the quackery, pseudoscience and alternative medicine WP references in the 'See Also' section for the reader who wants to learn more about these topics. Crum375 23:56, 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 14:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Violence[edit]

This band is completely lacking in notability. I placed a notability tag on it on 8 June, but no effort was made to indicate the band's importance. On 14 June, I placed a db-band tag on the article which CambridgeBayWeather changed to a notability prod. This prod was then removed on 16 June by an anonymous user. I replaced the notability prod, but CambridgeBayWeather said that was not appropriate. Hence, this AfD. The band is nonnotable, and despite a high number of edits to the article, and warnings that the notability had not been proven, no significant attempt has been made to prove said notability. Delete. Charles 19:44, 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. Wikipedia is NOT for things made up in school one day. Not notable. --++Lar: t/c 01:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slap Bag[edit]

unnotable, plus the editor repeatedly removed the notability tag However, I am not sure on this one. ackoz 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also i feel that the yale news paper link covers as actual an actual published account of the game. If you have any suggestions on how i could improve it just let me know and i'd be more than happy to give it a go — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.200.136 (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 (Liberatore, 2006). 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Murphy[edit]

Delete non-notable, an activist and former chair of a local branch of a pressure group. Homey 19:57, 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. Petros471 19:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Bravo (Gary Scott)[edit]

Nominated on behalf of Fortheloveofhampsters. --Xyrael T 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this was done based on a ((helpme)) request. --Xyrael T 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, and respectfully in deference to you being a senior Wikipedian, you may have been duped into helping him so that he can vote for deletion (though he has not as of yet)! --Countdewiki 03:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A number of verifiable links have been provided below in the form of easy to verify credible sources and links, which include:
  1. The Official US Patent and Trademark site showing that “Steam” is a registered Federal mark bearing the same contact address as the Official Greg Bravo and Steam site which has a www address and is not a member page.
  2. Contributions Mr. Bravo has made that are mentioned on the Freddie Scott and Vince Martell of Vanilla Fudge pages. He is also seen on the official Steam site, and in other media on the web performing with them and other notable artistes.
  3. Performances that he has done under the “Steam” name, and under his own name at major events and venues with some quite well-known artistes and friends backing him up on stage can be seen here [41], and here as published on the official site of a major New York media market radio station [42] (click on the 3/19/05 link for the Steam and Rascals concert).--Musicknight 23:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
newly-registered Musicknight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for sockpuppetry. Just zis Guy you know? 11:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see the below remarks I have made regarding the issue of what is called sockpuppetry. - Ron Stabile
Please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) for my summary of this mediation. Ideogram 23:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
newly-registered Countdewiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked as a sockpuppet. Just zis Guy you know? 11:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see the below remarks I have made regarding the issue of what is called sockpuppetry. - Ron Stabile
Indeed. If the link can be absolutely verified it would be worth a redirect, but that's about it. Just zis Guy you know? 08:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Geocities (or myspace, etc) sites are not reliable sources since we cannot tell with certainty who put the information up. Kimchi.sg 00:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Ideogram, I don't know what is going on here yet, but I also see that you are way more involved than you should be! Please do not delete my comments if you have nothing to hide. You, too, have been accused of sockpuppetry. IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE LEAVE MY REMARKS AND VOTE ALONE! - Ron Stabile
Fine, I'll let others decide whether an anonymous account making ad-hominem attacks is worth listening to. Ideogram 05:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, here's "a clue". Wikipedia is not a democracy, so ballot-stuffing won't work. Ideogram 05:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I agree about "ballot-stuffing" in any regard that you may have meant it. As for 'anonymous' you know my name and I know yours so what's your point? Oh, I did not register so you can't arrange to have me blocked if you do not like what I say like you did to the poor schnooks above? I am honest, and will stick the the FACTS whether you or anyone else likes it or not! - Ron Stabile
I also heartily invite everyone to look at the history tabs of every page involved with the article, including your own mediation reference (above), to see how well you edit out everything that you do not like that people say about you or your side of the story, and how you make the story lean only in your favor! I'm sure that the savvy administrators look at the tabs anyway, so take it light! And User:Ideogram, if you read the policy you would know that Wikipedia is a democracy and not a DICTATORSHIP! That is why it was created in the first place. If the shoe fits wear it! If not, don't worry about it. - Ronny Stabile

*Comment There is no reason to add my vote because it is pretty clear in which way this vote is heading, perhaps for the wrong reasons though some definitely seem to be right! It's hard to ignore the fact that this is all like whoever brings the most friends to a gang fight wins the day! There definitely is no fairness or impartiality involved, and that is truly remarkable for an organization that touts itself as an encyclopedia. Please stay away from the Beatles' articles! From what I can see above, my comment will probably be removed as though we were living under the order of the Third Reich. SunKing --71.249.8.236 18:10, 25 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. no evidence of notability on offer, and does not meet WP:CORP. Consensus is clear. --++Lar: t/c 01:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Skateboard History[edit]

Private museum. I don't think we need this. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:11, 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 14:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IEI Food[edit]

No notability expressed in article. Almost certainly fails WP:CORP doktorb | words 20:16, 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 slowly delete (Liberatore, 2006). 14:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GelaSkins[edit]

Repeat of company schtick for non-notable product. Was marked ((prod)) back in April but removed by creator. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.", plus it is spam... A1 and A3 are borderline cases as well, but whatever, regular delete works too. PaulC/T+ 16:41, 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 Delete. No assertion of notability. fails WP:BAND. will userify on request, contact me. --++Lar: t/c 01:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chavous[edit]

Fails to meet WP:BAND, hence nn. Wisden17 20:19, 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XO (song)[edit]

This single has not been officially released. All user did was copy and paste the Dance, Dance template Diehard2k5 20:34, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manteca (wrestler)[edit]

Luchawiki (which has over 700 bios of Mexican wrestlers) does not mention a wrestler named "Manteca." It appears he has won no titles, no hairs or masks, been in lucha magazines or done anything that would make him a notable luchador. It is also likely he is not real as well. The article claims that he fought with another wrestler over the name "chupacabra" about twenty years before the first chupacabra sighting. There are also questionable things like a Mexican wrestler having a move called "Butterball" and the mention of the IWA as a sanctioning body (there was no promotion in Mexico called IWA, it was an American promotion in North Carolina). At best this person in non-notable but he is most likely entirely fictional. --Darren Jowalsen 20:33, 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 Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Robinson (surfer)[edit]

Of borderline notability and is probably a vanity page as the only significant contributor is likely the subject of the article. The one reference given is of questionable significance. Delete vote, though I must note that the subject may become notable in the future and deserve a non-vanity piece then. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:31, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(See also User_talk:Saxifrage#Intelliworks) Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelliworks[edit]

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelliworks, this is not a repost as the content is different. Intelliworks CRM gets about 500 Googles, of which 250 or so are unique. The article does not show evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE or WP:CORP and is the sole contribution of Honeyuee (talk · contribs). I call spam. Just zis Guy you know? 21:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • User's first edit (you guessed, didn't you?)
  • Intelliworks was profiled by The Washington Post. Full version of the article can be found here, and this is the link to The Washington Post's Archive search result.
  • CRM Blog profiled Intelliworks as recently as May 11.

This satisfies WP:CORP criteria no. 1. I suggest that this be marked as a stub for cleanup. Honeyuee 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the data, we now know the company has about 30 employees but plans to get up to 50 (about 1/3 of the number who work in this one office of nine or ten in the UK of my firm), and has a dozen or so customers. Confirms my view. Just zis Guy you know? 16:19, 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 deleted, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bain[edit]

Makes no claim to notability. Seems to be nothing more than spam-- GraemeL (talk) 21:48, 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 speedy deleted, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Duxén[edit]

Makes no claim to notability. Seems to be nothing more than spam.-- GraemeL (talk) 21:50, 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 was keep. No-one has attempted to demonstrate that the sources in the article are unreliable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James_Dicks[edit]

James_Dicks was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-19. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dicks/2006-06-19.

This guy is not notable and there are very view factual reports about his activity Smtusa 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by King of Hearts. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Cigar Store[edit]

notable? advert? I'm not from the US, maybe other users should assess the notability ackoz 21:58, 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 speedy delete. Kusma (討論) 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Gordon[edit]

This person does not show up as an actor at imdb, and there are zero relevant google hits for '"Christopher Gordon" "Cornwall College"'. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:03, 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. Petros471 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jensen (footballer)[edit]

Non-notable football player. Included are Mathew Holt, Matthew Elder, Shaun Densmore, Alan Kearney, Kieran Agard, John Irving (footballer), Steven Morrison and Cory Sinott who all play only for the reserve team. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is no reason to delete this article. It is about a genuine Everton reserves player and will be updated when the reserves season starts.SenorKristobbal 22:03, 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 no consensus (article is kept) (Liberatore, 2006). 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia Surf League[edit]

Delete Non-notable organization/competition. Reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. It has no history, no claim to notability and only 600 Google hits, most of which are press releases from the organization itself. - pm_shef 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) pm_shef 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm a lifeguard, so I'd hardly go around accusing me of bias against lifeguard competitions *rolls eyes*. Anyways my point about most of the google hits being press releases still stands, and the fact remains besides being the first in atlantic Canada, it makes no claim to notability. - pm_shef 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - No worries about the systemic bias, i never accused you of it - I just said it almost seems to fit in that category. No offense meant, the topic just stuck in my head. Being the first of a competition type in Canada isn't notability enough? SECProto 01:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer If it is was the first in Canada then yes. But it's the first in a single region. There already exists may other competitions in Canada, including an official competition circuit run by the Lifesaving Society of Canada with provincial championships, national championships, etc, etc. - pm_shef 01:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I figure it's notable enough. I don't know all the details on it, nor the whole lifeguarding scene. But i figure notability can be a lame reason to delete an article :) SECProto 01:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummmm Sorry. Notability is the main reason to delete an article. - pm_shef 02:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, well I dispute your claim that this article is not notable. This debate we appear to be having is not that important, whether this article gets deleted or not is not very important. 32kb on the wikipedia servers is really not that important, and I seriously don't think this article is somehow against the goals of wikipedia. SECProto 02:14, 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 delete. Proto///type 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centric CRM[edit]

Previously deleted with different content at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centric CRM I checked this out, Google returns about 185 unique hits (some thousands total, including lots of forum posts). No evidence of user base, innovation, market share, turnover or any other objective measure of encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmmm... I'm not sure how you reach the conclusions you do. Centric CRM has over 5,000 registered users in the development community. If you actually visit the community you will see a very active and robust set of forums with countless posts on a daily basis.

As for innovation, Centric CRM was named a finalist for LinuxWorld's Product Excellence awards 2 months ago at LinuxWorld Boston. The product's approach to CRM which marries traditional CRM functionality found in products like Salesforce.com with sophisticated functionality like Document Management, automated customer surveys, collaborative project managment, content management and e-commerce is unique in the CRM space. As an example, the Centric CRM developer community with its discussion forums, wikis, newsgroups, code repositories and so forth, is run entirely on Centric CRM itself.

As for user base, companies like The Weather Channel and other Fortune 500 companies are using Centric CRM throughout their organizations today, in addition to many SMBs throughout the world. More significant customer engagements will be announced in the months ahead as those projects clear their NDA requirements. On the partnership side, some of the leading infrastructure companies in the IT space are forming strategic partnerships with Centric CRM because of its unique position in the marketplace as a true enterprise class open source application. Announcements on these fronts will be forthcoming over the next 6 weeks, as will related articles in the press and online.

Centric CRM has been under continuous development for over 6 years, comprises millions of lines of code, and has been embraced by some of the world's largest companies. A deliberately low profile has been kept during that time while the pieces of a valuable business were put in place; sort of an old fashioned way of doing things, in this age when a couple guys with an idea can get millions of dollars of VC funding. The profile of the product is now being deilberately raised as part of a larger effort to expand its awareness and penetration into the market at large. Posting an article to Wikipedia is but one small step of that larger process.

That Centric CRM has no "encyclopaedic notability" seems to me a hasty conclusion based not on verifiable fact (development community size and vigor; technical sophistication of the product; quality of customers; etc.) but on a single datapoint--number of Google hits. I encourage you to look a little deeper before drawing your conclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdh98368 (talk • contribs) .

That's all very interesting, but the argument has two flaws. The first is that it does not directly address the concerns of Wikipedia, but that is excusable because you probably haven't been made aware of them. Wikipedia:Notability (software) is the project document that details how the notability of software like Centric CRM is judged. From what you've said above, criterion #6 is the closest one to being satisfied: can you provide a citation for the LinuxWorld award/honor?
The second flaw is where you say, "The profile of the product is now being deilberately raised as part of a larger effort to expand its awareness and penetration into the market at large. Posting an article to Wikipedia is but one small step of that larger process." That's specifically a Do Not at Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Vanity and Wikipedia:Autobiography.) Wikipedia is an academic project, not an advertising platform or a web directory. Using it as a platform for promotion makes editors rather hostile, often to the point that an article that is on the borderline for being included, as, say, one might be if it got a marginal honor in line with criterion #6, will get voted out of existence on principle. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for responding. Thanks also for the link to the "notability" page, since that helps clarify the policies A quick Google Search on the topic of Centric CRM as a finalist for LinuxWorld's product excellence awards returns multiple citations. As for published pieces, there is Michael Caton's-- e-Week's Techncial Analyst--piece in e-Week. At least two long articles in the print editions of 2 separate and well-respected industry magazines will hit the newsstands in July and in August. For an independent opinion on Centric CRM's technological sophistication, I could put you in contact with Brian Shield, CTO of The Weather Channel, who has moved TWC's entire help-desk operation onto Centric CRM.

My purpose in submitting the article is not commercial gain. Rather, we are proud of the approach taken in designing and building Centric CRM. Unlike many commercial software ventures, Centric CRM's design and execution would please a computer scientist. As an avid user and fan of Wikipedia, the thought of having the company listed there would be very gratifying. Over the next few weeks, my intention was to begin posting some interesting technical information about the product, discussing its MVC design pattern, its incorporation of the JSR 168 (portlet) spec, and so forth. Information, in other words, that is intended to be of general interest to other wikipedia users interested in open source, CRM, and innovative applications of advanced technologies. I hope that you will allow the article to stand. Mdh98368 (talk • contribs) .

But these are not "multiple non-trivial mentions". Your comment above is very revealing: WP:NOT a promotional tool. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion #6 isn't satisfied by the LinuxWorld mention, as nominations are not awards. The eWeek piece is a very minor news piece and future articles don't count, so #1 isn't satisfied either. Numbers 2 through 5 don't apply. So, it is non-notable. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, my apologies. I submitted the entry a month too early. Forgive the enthusiasm. Talk to you in a few weeks when your objections have been addressed by external events in the marketplace. (talk • contribs)

More like, come back and talk when someone who is not in a conflict of interest has decided that the software warrants an article, and then contribute to it. Vanity is still vanity. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:23, 22 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 11:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. Nissotti[edit]

Although the article makes claims of notability, there are zero Google hits for Nissotti +hydrocephalus. If somebody can prove that this person is notable for the statements made in this article, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. All of the external links are to articles about hydrocephalus, not about this person. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:12, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loughborough Students flying club[edit]

Doesn't really seem that notable. The link given is dead, so can't be verified. Plus it's in an awful state Skinnyweed 22:21, 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. fails WP:WEB no evidence of notability. --++Lar: t/c 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desihub[edit]

Was originally prod'd and user removed tag with no reason. This article appears to drastically fail WP:WEB. Delete Yanksox (talk) 22:30, 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. No Original Research, fails POV. Willing to userify, just ask. --++Lar: t/c 01:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aamjiwnaang: A Canadian Community Under Seige[edit]

The very title informs us that this is a polemic, not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Whiteye and Aamjiwnaang[edit]

Hi Folks: I wrote or replied to each of you with no response from any. Zoe and I talked and he pointed to the NPOV to which I responded (no reaction yet). So, not having anywhere else to go, I came here to reach all if I could??? Zoe suggests the title is polemic. Scientist have dug 12 feet into the earth at Aamjiwnaang before they reached unpolluted dirt/clay. Every inch before it is polluted, as is the air above it. Aamjiwnaang is not under siege by an army everybody likes but me. It is saturated with benzodenes, clorines, x-factors providing a haven for a possible pestilent. How do I defend my piece if you mark for delete and move on to your next article, never revisiting the last to see if the writer spoke to the issues pointed out? Is there another way that I don't know about? Bud Whiteye 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Bud Whiteye, Aamjiwnaang[reply]

Bud, I did reply to you on your Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask for a little extension, Bud has implied to me that he will attempt to write this when the WP:MoS and all other formats of Wiki. Maybe, a two day one? Yanksox (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Scratch that, I saw the article Aamjiwnaang First Nation, we can assist Bud in writing what we knows about the situation into this article in NPOV style. Yanksox (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to close this as a delete, consensus is clear... How about if it's userified to someone's user page? I still am going to delete but will be happy to userify on request, just get hold of me. ++Lar: t/c
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The consensus is that, although this game never came to market, rumors of its existence and the general fame of the "Zelda" brand make it noteworthy enough for an article. Xoloz 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga[edit]

(Please see also the first AFD).

Vanity - The article, now about a fake game, was simply created to generate attention for an obscure person, who in turn tried to re-sell the "fake" game in a private auction on his forum using this article as hype for the product. Nothing but a ruse to get traffic and money from a hoax. TSA 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments were made at the first AFD and have been copied here

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. I already deleted it per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learncasting. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podagogy[edit]

This article was originally listed along with Learncasting in this AfD. Learncasting was deleted, but I am re-listing Podagogy, as I can not be sure that all comments were directed at both articles. The reasoning from the original AfD was:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is nothing but a dictionary definition (and a made-up, neologistic one at that), plus a barrage of spammy podcasting links. Delete the damned thing, as this is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary or a linkfarm. Proto||type 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I abstain from commenting on this AfD. TigerShark 22:54, 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. Flowerparty☀ 11:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandalay Place[edit]

Advertising for a real estate opportunity in Irving, Texas. Was nominated for speedies and prods, but author/anon is removing them (and speedy wasn't under a valid criterion anyway) so sending here. Technical nomination - no opinion from me.➨ ЯЄDVERS 22:57, 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. not quite strange enough for WP:BJAODN but definitely deletable per clear consensus, no WP:OR, WP:V, etc... --++Lar: t/c 01:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name yahweh/jehovah[edit]

Original Research, nonsense Interlingua talk 23:18, 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. -lethe talk + 16:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-life computation[edit]

POV fork of Half-life article. Rmhermen 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See in Talk:Half-life the extensive discussion ongoing since June 12. Jclerman 11:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page discussion referred to above is quite convoluted. The article under discussion here was created by User:Pce3@ij.net when his/her attempts to include the computations in the half life article were rebuffed. That article contains the rather standard and quite simple math equations for exponential decay, however User:Pce3@ij.net apparently objected to the use of a couple of the standard symbols. The content of the page under consideration here contains:
A simplified how to calculation which doesn't use the rate constant symbol. The use of non-standard lg for log is itself confusing (this was pointed out to the user). Objection: Wikipedia is not a how to.
The inclusion of unexplained or identified (language) computer code for the calculation. Meaningless nonsense - which adds nothing to understanding the concept. If programming is being taught then the students should develope the code from the equations.
The long table was apparently produced by the author using Excel to make a point and is in itself rather absurdly meaningless.
Does that help to clarify? Vsmith 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Though I'll with-hold my vote for the time being, I agree that the way the article is a bit out of place the way it is right now. I would like to bring to your attention what are called trampolines, and if there is really a need to demistify half-life (there is, high-schoolers learn about half-life and at that level it is completely inaccessible), then a trampoline could be in place. Wikipedia may not be a how-to manual, but a case has already been made for trampolines, and the only thing lacking is volunteers with enough understanding and will to create the articles.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For high-school accesible demistification of the concept of half-life I consider most appropriate to perform experiments and correct computer simulations. See in [47] how to test the behavior of the last atoms. The proponent of the fork lacks to understand that validation of physics-math models consists in comparing the model's behavior with experimental observations of real physical systems or valid simulations (physical and/or computer). The references given here describe how to test the validity (or not) of the exponential formula for small number of atoms with simple simulations, experiments, and computer code. Physics describes nature. When a formula can mimic nature we accept such a model and use it. In radioactive decay, the exponential model does not apply for small number of atoms (or small number of atoms are not within the domain of validity of the formula or equation or table). The DIY experiments use pennies or m&m candies. [48], [49]. A similar experiment is performed in college with isotopes of a very short half-life, e.g., see Fig 5 in [50]. See how to write a computer program that simulates radioactive decay including the required randomness in [51]. Let high-schoolers experience the behavior of the last atoms! Jclerman 11:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The table is wrong--mathematically incorrect according to the specific principle it aims to clarify (as explained on the parent article Talk:Half-life, but not corrected by proponent of the forked article). The page's proponent claims the results table is for an equation for a process by which each atom of 14C transforms into an atom of 14N, given a starting amount of 14C. Observation: the total number of atoms is not constant, therefore the table is not correct for the issue at hand. The proponent supports it "The issue here is not the tables anyway or who created them or how since the facts they are intended to illustrate can be reproduced by virtually anyone using virtually any method." I don't see how false facts can be used to support anything about anything, nor why they should be included anywhere in Wikipedia. DMacks 17:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the tables. I don't know what Jclerman is going on about though, why are you trying to dictate how to teach high schoolers? I don't mean to be rude but your speech largely resembles rambling, and it may be that you are not a native English speaker but it is incredibly difficult to follow your discussion. Is it really neccessary to mention that "Physics describes nature" in a discussion like this?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • between Cycle 1 and Cycle 2: 5E+307 atoms of C14 decay into 1 single atom of N14. Where are the missing (5E+307)-1 N14 atoms?
  • ...
  • between Cycle 1024 and Cycle 1025: 1 single atom of C14 decays into 1E+307 atoms of N14. Which process creates 1E+307 atoms out of a single one?
Needles to repeat it again and again, as it has been said already, the number of C14-decayed + N14-created atoms at each cycle should remain equal and constant throughout the whole table if it is to reflect both the correct physics and the proponent's own model. Jclerman 16:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • (Previous remarks in favor of keeping moved here from Talk:Half-life computation article talk page.)
It was necessary to create this article apart from the Half-life article in order to show computer code and data involved in the computation to avoid inappropriate and continued deletion from the Half-life article. ...IMHO (Talk) 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of this page would mean that the Wikipedia stands for depriving readers (and potential financial contributors) factual information which they can understand and comprehend. ...IMHO (Talk) 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information provided by this article differs from the Half-life article by expanding the results of the probabilistic method of computation (with less reliance upon archaic symbology) and showing the mathematical equations, computer code and actual results of both the probabilistic and the deterministic methods of computation. Special attention is given to the primary application of half life computation in Carbon-14 dating where integer versus decimal variables should be used. Expansion of the Half-life article is necessary to demonstrate and clarify the correct interpretation of the mathematics in regard to their application to a Carbon-14 dating scenario. Since User:jclerman insists that the half-life decay of Carbon-14 proceeds ad infintium regardless of Carbon-14 sample size it is clear that User:jclerman is using decimal rather than integer variables in his thinking which simply do not apply. By refusing to allow this clarification and example to be included in the Half-life article User:jclerman and the Half-life article fail to uphold the WP:NPOV policy and the Half-life article should be tagged for deletion instead. ...IMHO (Talk) 09:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...IMHO (Talk) 06:34, 24 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. Fails proposed guideline WP:ORG. No evidence of notability in article. Per clear consensus. --++Lar: t/c 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Centura Science Fiction Society[edit]

This society gets 0 google hits other than references on Wikipedia and is also vanity because the leader of the society creted the article. Was prodded, but the tag was removed. Indrian 23:45, 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 Proto///type 09:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy Investing[edit]

I am bringing this article up for an AfD vote because I am unsure if it meets several of the qualities for inclusion at Wikipedia. First, the subject only has 1000 Google hits, which to me is a rather low number to be considered notable. Second, the article is definately self-promotional, with people connected with Advocacy Investing having created the article. That said, the subject has had some significant press coverage (such as http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f6ddcfca-ecc2-11da-a307-0000779e2340.html, along with articles (which I can not verify) in CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, The Street.com, First Business, The Wall Street Transcript, Crain’s Chicago Business, Green Money Journal, among others. I have speedy deleted this article twice now and have restored it at the request of the article's creator. I will not be voting b/c I said I'd simply present the facts on the article and allow others to decide if it meets the criteria for inclusion here. Alabamaboy 00:02, 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 merge. Petros471 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Stein[edit]

Non-notable Congressional candidate, does not conform to Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, deprodded. Accurizer 00:02, 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 Delete. Proto///type 09:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-object programming[edit]

I've searched references for the whole content of the article for too long, yet haven't been lucky. I've already asked for them in the talkl page again and again, with no answer. The original article had a whole section which was nonsense (see Talk page), so I believe the article's topic is completely made up, or maybe original research by some non-expert in the topic. In conclusion, the article is non-verifiable and (consequently) perhaps original research. euyyn 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Object Programming for Computational Science, which says a little and gives 2 emails to ask for further details
Post-object programming, which lists our WP article as one of 2 web references (the other one being the Cecil's homepage).
I now think the article is nothing but academic propaganda for someone's non-notable research. --euyyn 01:35, 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 delete (if we were vote counting, it's 4-3 delete, so no consensus, leaning towards delete, but AFD is not a vote). The three links provided - the sole justification for keeping - are sixth form reviews (ie, twelfth grade). Calton provides the best argument. Proto///type 08:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Silence[edit]

No assertion of notability for this play other than it was performed in Paraguay; author is redlinked NawlinWiki 18:37, 13 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 01:09, 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.
More