< June 3 June 5 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

June 4[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 Merge per consensus below. There were no objections to a speedy merge and the original nominator agreed. A comment has been left at Talk:Residence Hall Federation linking to this AFD. BigDT 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Residence Hall Federation[edit]

Non-notable student organization (outside of Virginia Tech, I'm sure it's decently important there). Perhaps a mention in the Virginia Tech article is appropriate, but not this type of article that describes every division and committee of the organization. Metros232 00:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, but what level of importance do other schools' hall councils have in the university governance system? At Tech, our RHF is coequal with the SGA. BigDT 04:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point the user was making I misread, so I'll say that my point is that the key to Wikipedia is wikilinks, interaction of articles. It would take the creation of articles on the dorm halls, which don't merit articles. Aside from linking to the university, this article would be an orphan. Give it a brief mention in the VT article, but it doesn't even deserve a merge. Teke 06:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of information, there were individual articles for a handful of buildings on VT's campus. All except three notable ones have been merged into Virginia Tech campus and I am working to clean up that article. BigDT 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need an article for each school's SGA. If a school has a high-profile academic program, that may be worth a separate article. SGA's and dorm councils are worth, at best, a section in the university's article. Fan1967 16:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game of physical activity[edit]

About as generic of a list as they come. I certainly don't mind lists, but this is a little ridiculous. fuzzy510 00:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Way The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus[edit]

The full name of this new religious movement is apparently 'The Way The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus', sometimes rendered with a dash between "The Way" and "The Church" and sometimes not. Searching on just "The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus" gets just 159 Google hits, and Google actually trims that down to just 14 when it eliminates similar entries. All 14 hits appear to be message boards or Wikipedia mirrors -- you'd think that if this was a notable denomination, we'd have at least one newspaper or magazine or journal article on it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The final editing and cleanup was done by User:Zanimum by an e-mail he received from me. It was no different than this article by The Christadelphians to which it resembles in beliefs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christadelphians
The Way The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus is not a cult like Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians led by David Koresh, Jim Jones and The People's Temple...to name a few who have articles on Wikipedia.
The founder of The Way The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus was vicepresident of Catholic Action in the Los Angeles arcdiocese in the 1980s. He has been a T.A. and mathematics teacher for the past 24 years http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/Lincoln_HS/Egonzalez/. Among those he has worked with in the classroom are Mia Hamm in 6th grade washington Elementary in Compton, Venus Williams and Serena Williams at Foster Elementary, Warren Moon's mother-in-law at Foster Elementary. He ws also a clasmate at Mr. Simmon's science class at Dominguez High in Compton of Andre Young, known as Dr. Dre.
I know these things because my name is Elpidio Gonzalez. I am more of the intellectual type, not the emotional kind. I try to avoid contraversy, that is why I am not in the news like these guys were.
I did not submit the article. But what got me is the way is being handled since it appears I am classified as a cultist, spammer, or something similar. the article has been cleaned up...by Zanimum...It is in the same format as some others...but it seems you guys love contraversy. Probably your wish will come true.
I have saved the article and this talk for future references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.235.181 (talk • contribs)
  • Followup The reason I ask is that the GFDL license doesn't always apply to these pages, for example my comments do not. So I was wanting to know if this was for personal reference or if you intend to do other things with it. Teke 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reformatted your comments to help the discussion flow better. I hope you don't mind. (I didn't change any of your text - just compacted it so that the discussion wouldn't be so disjointed.) BigDT 03:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was no different than this article by The Christadelphians to which it resembles in beliefs. Well, that may appear true from your perspective. However, you may not realize -- we're not talking about the merits of the groups; we're talking about the merits of the articles. This means that it doesn't matter whether TCOYIJC is "a cult like Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians led by David Koresh, Jim Jones and The People's Temple" or not -- that has absolutely no influence on the decision. What is very different between your group and the others you mention is that for all those other groups, we can report what reliable sources say about them. That's because ... reliable sources are mentioning them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      In the last days 
      the mountain of Yahweh's temple will be established 
      as chief among the mountains; 
      it will be raised above the hills, 
      and peoples will stream to it.

gives me hope. This is my last comment on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.235.181 (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 not reached here, but will be reached at RfD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VoteFair ranking[edit]

The term "VoteFair ranking" for the Kemeny-Young method is needlessly POV. Wikipedia's aim is to describe alternative election methods and not to promote them. Furthermore, the term "VoteFair ranking" is used only by User:VoteFair. This term is used for the Kemeny-Young method nowhere else. Markus Schulze 00:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You moved the article to Kemeny-Young method leaving a redirect. So you are proposing deleting the redirect. WP:RFD is the route. Incidentally, comparing [1] with [2] suggests that it is a reasonable redirect. --Henrygb 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question So, which is up for deletion, Kemeny-Young method or the redirect article? The latter needs to be taken up elsewhere (per Henrygb); if it's the former, the name above must be changed accordingly. B.Wind 06:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the subst from ((subst:afd1)) to ((rfd)). Therefore, the discussion has moved to here. Markus Schulze 08:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango123 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinful Playmates[edit]

Non notable business, what little text there is reads like an ad (" formed by partners with over 12 years of experience"), speedy deletion tag war going on, so I'm bringing the matter here Equendil Talk 00:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

270 (number)[edit]

Non-notable number. Perhaps it would be notable if the information were correct, but I also fixed 2 or 3 errors while nominating. (At the present time, there is 1 notable property, Harshard not being notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't mean any disrespect, but could you please give another, more publically assessable reason for your vote? PrimeFan 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, since it is already covered at Wiktionary. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heat (racing)[edit]

Extended definition page that doesn't fit into an encyclopedia. Transwiki, perhaps? fuzzy510 01:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone used a lot of extra words to say the same thing Wiktionary said in one sentence doesn't mean there actually is any more information there. Peyna 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, where some see extrapolation, pertinent details and explanation, others see extraneous verbiage and unnessary bla bla. I mean, why let details get in the way of knowledge and understanding? Maybe we should strip down the wiktionary definition even further to something like heat= preliminary race. That would seem to sum it up in three words rather than their obviously long-winded eleven. N'est-ce pas?--JJay 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirected to 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid. Mailer Diablo 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Abdul Kahar[edit]

Maybe vanity, but mostly a news event; would be better on WikiNews. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that this is more a new article that encyclopedic, at this point anyway. Crum375 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ñ

Comments moved from top of article as otherwise it messes up display on main afd pages. MartinRe 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the page: 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid has been set up to bring all the info together, please help work on this page and we can then redirect Mohammed Abdul Kahar to the new page. This gives us the chance to move him back here if his details become any more significant. The new page needs a lot of work so please help.Pluke 10:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone can give me a good reason to keep this article as it is, I will redirect to 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid tomorrow. The linked article already contains a section dedication to Mohammed Abdul Kahar which was copied and expanded from here. If Mohammed Abdul Kahar becomes a more significant figure in the near future we can always move that information back to his own page, but at the moment i think this is the best solution. Comments?Pluke 21:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would not solve the concerns I (and I believe others) had, in that this is too fluid with sources that are too liable to change, hence the transwiki to news. Simply moving the same information into a separate article doesn't address that in my view, as it's the fluid information than needs transikifiying, not the article title. Regards, MartinRe 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pluke, by all means go for it. I was convinced that was already done. Info duplication is bad as it induces forking. PizzaMargherita 05:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pending further results, I'd opt to keep the article (albeit with improved sourcing of information given in the article). If this case does not develop in a way worthy of encyclopedic mentioning, merge with 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid (or simply redirect, as the text has already been incorporated). Cheers, Something Wicked 21:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual sport[edit]

Dictionary definition. There's really not much else that you can say beyond the one sentence given that wouldn't be better suited someplace else. fuzzy510 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Dana[edit]

Appears to be an attempt to advertise a surf shop that I am not sure of its notability. An older revision read like an advertisement, and, in the current version before June 5, the URL link to their website even had a tracking ID — ad_id=wiki Invitatious 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for merge, see WP:MERGE to pursue that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_George_Washington_International_Law_Review[edit]

Not Noteworthy: this is a minor publication by one department of many in one university of very many. die Baumfabrik 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to The Lion King: Six New Adventures. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vulture Shock[edit]

This is a book in a set of books. Duplicate information exists in The Lion King: Six New Adventures. Starionwolf 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Keith Smith[edit]

vanity article by marginal fringe figure, delete Homey 01:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the article remains or is edited or deleted must be left to Wikipedia. I would simply comment as follows.
Firstly, you may feel that notes on the Chairman of CDA are relevant to anybody researching the CDA article on Wikipedia. You may also feel that the references to the landmark internet libel action Keith Smith v Williams will be of use to internet law researchers.
Secondly, I have reviewed the current content of the article and find no falsehood in it. Providing 'citations' even for such mundane matters as (eg) my membership of the RICS, is less easy than it sounds.
Thirdly, recent 'vandalism' of this article appears to have been instigated by Tracy Williams, the loser in the recent landmark action Keith Smith v Williams and her associate Ed Chilvers, who has indeed published on the internet an abstract concerning what he believes to be the 'facts' of the case. http://www.lvl9.org/article.htm. You may gather from this that there is bad blood between Chilvers and myself.
As to the motives of Williams and Chilvers, you must draw your own conclusions from these facts.Mike Keith Smith 10:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" but I feel I have to. "Homey" has made sneering anti-socialist, the-free-market-is-the-answer-to-everything remarks which make me, as a Leftist, hate him/her far more than traditional conservatives who at least aren't Thatcherite cultural vandals. "

You can't ask for an entry to be kept just because you 'hate' the admin guy. Get real.(— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.13.238.150 (talk • contribs) )

<<Removed personal flame war about unrelated court case for the second time. Please keep comments relevant to the deletion debate - Wikipedia is not Usenet. Humansdorpie 18:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC))>>[reply]

Keep: What's wrong with the Right? 86.139.132.193 22:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mike Smith is a well known figure on the Right in UK politics. Some politically motivated PC types seem to be wageing a vendetta. regards Barry 66.222.88.90 02:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC). Keep: the CDA is a viable and important part of contemporary UK political thought and discussion. MIke Smith is an important part of that organization. Atruelove 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors should be clearly aware of the campaign and its management here and on Stuart Millson and Gregory Lauder-Frost. It demonstrates clear hatred by some administrators and total lack of control by the Wikipedia Foundation. Sussexman 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep and clean up. Lauder-Frost was Secretary of the Monday Club and held other high posts. Not a suitable candidate for deletion. The article is a bit of a mess and should be cleaned up. --Tony Sidaway 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lauder-Frost[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mostly Rainy 01:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Aiken[edit]

Two Career Races in NASCAR is not important enough for one driver to receive a page in Wikipedia.Casey14 01:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mostly Rainy 01:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick O'Dell[edit]

One career race in NASCAR is not enough for a Wikipedia page. Casey14 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Adams[edit]

One career race is not important enough for Wikipedia. Casey14 02:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So All 2831 drivers to start a NASCAR Cup race should get Wikipedia pages? Casey14 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about the 38,000 starters of the 1996 Boston Marathon? They all get pages according to you? Crum375 21:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not sure how much protest i'd put up, but that's apples and oranges - The Boston Marathon isn't a professional sporting league. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP not paper - don't be so shocked. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to remember the name of the midget that was once fielded by a major league baseball team as a gag. He has an article here, I've read it. One day contract, one career at-bat. He walked, because his low height gave him a terribly small strike zone, and was lifted for a pinch runner, never to appear again. Go figure! :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie Gaedel. I love Eddie Gaedel. When I went to the Baseball Hall of Fame like eight years ago (at the ripe old age of 13), my absolute favorite thing was Gaedel's "1/8" jersey. -- Kicking222 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Moschella, Jr.[edit]

Racing a Season in a modified series is not anywhere near important enough for a Wikipedia page. Casey14 02:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - notable enough term. --Cyde↔Weys 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double posting[edit]

The author contested my prod (although they didn't remove it.) See discussion on my talk page and theirs. No vote. Grandmasterka 02:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote As I'm the author, I'm bias, so I'm not going to vote. However my logic was that there are: 1,680,000 Google hits for "double post" and 605,000 Google hits for "double posting" proving that it is a widely used term and I believe it can be expanded beyond being just a definition by showing how double posting is recieved on different forums.--SeizureDog 02:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And ghits are irrelevant for simple English words or terms - cannot differentiate between WP and wiktionary. Crum375 02:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marv Acton[edit]

14 career NASCAR races, and not one top ten, hardly notable, not important enough for Wikipedia. Casey14 02:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Cyde↔Weys 13:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Aars[edit]

One career race in NASCAR hardly important for Wikipedia. Casey14 02:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Killam Trusts[edit]

only contributor is Killamtrusts. Likely spam/vanity Bachrach44 02:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I can vouch for the fact that the Killam Trusts exist -- the main library at Dalhousie University is named after Killam. This article could obviously use a lot of work but my sense is that the Killam Trusts are a sufficiently big deal to warrant mention. Certainly the article needs to be renamed. Greyfedora 02:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Union Broadcasting System[edit]

The network in Network is the United Broadcasting System, the network in Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is the National Broadcasting System, and even if this article were factually accurate it wouldn't be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Greyfedora 02:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, the network in Network (film) is the Union Broadcasting System... but the point stands. Greyfedora 03:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maritess vs the Super Friends[edit]

NN. Non-encyclopedic. Do we really need an article describing the entire comedy routine of a relatively minor comedian? --Ichabod 02:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every Shade of Blue[edit]

non notable individual song. according to Bananarama, didn't get on top 100 in the UK, the US or Australia. Albums are generally notable for themselves, songs, not so much. Rory096 02:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Millson[edit]

Vanity article about a marginal figure whose main contribution seems to be writing letters. Replete with original reserach. Homey 02:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Midge (TV Show)[edit]

I would speedy this if I could, as it's not only an obvious hoax but borders on sheer nonsense. The article says it's a popular series that never aired. OK... Google turns up nothing. Painfully unfunny.

Also nominated: Midge Amelia Mayhan. Danny Lilithborne 03:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article when someone started posting information about it on the page about the insect. I did so in good faith that the contributer was just confused. I have since looked for this show on Google with no result, and given the contradictory nature of the content, I would agree to the deletion of this page and the related page that I also created about the supposed main character (which I see you have also listed in AfD). I was meaning to speedy this earlier and I still can as the original creator of these pages. LaMenta3 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

610 Magnolia[edit]

Delete. Vanity article about an obscure restaurant. I live in Louisville, and this is not amongst the notable of the city's restaurants, none of which have articles yet. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 03:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 23:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Esplanade Mall[edit]

This article was proposed for deletion and the tag was removed, all it really is, is just a lengthy list of stores that exist at a mall. Also, this seems like an advert, Delete Yanksox 03:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Rehcsif that more info is needed besides a list of stores. Give me a day or so to search news articles and see what I can find. (What am I getting myself into??) NawlinWiki 04:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just find it deeply troubling that pages about local malls are being created, that has a severe lack of notability, and could also run into advertising. Just because there are other pages that exist like it, is not excuse for keeping one up. If we did that, AfD would be almost useless. Yanksox 03:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Collins[edit]

Deleted on first AfD and then recreated. He hasn't gotten any more notable to my knowledge, and the article doesn't give help by way of sources. Crystallina 03:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The man has obviously garnered a significant enough following to earn a Wikipedia article.
Keep - Do a google, you'll find lots of pages referring to him -- and evidently he was even on David Letterman for this video. If Letterman thinks he's notable enough to show to the whole USA, he's probably notable enough for WP. Man, that thing is painful to watch tho... --Rehcsif 04:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think all the animal stars from Letterman's "Stupid Pet Tricks" should be in Wikipedia too? This Brian Collins essentially has the same notability and function Bwithh 04:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly -- he was also an internet phenomenon. See also Carson Williams, for example... --Rehcsif 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the only reason he was on Letterman is because Letterman was once a communications major at Ball State like this poor fellow. Show up at the Ed Sullivan Theatre in a BSU t-shirt and you'll probably be on TV too. Not notable enough to warrant an article. Peyna 18:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goooo Cardinals!! Bwithh 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Collins. Note that this doesn't mention his Letterman appearance or much else to establish notability. Also note the "consensus" last time around was about 50/50... --Rehcsif 04:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct. The consensus last time was 80+% delete. Most of the keep votes last time were from anonymous IP addresses with one from an account with 10 edits in his history. None of those keep votes would be valid in the final consideration. there was one valid keep vote Bwithh 04:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filehive[edit]

Completely non-notable. Not in top 100,000 websites, google only gives 36 results and not all are related. Article is pure advertisement. Crossmr 04:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which has nothing to do with whether or not its permitted to stay as an article. It has no encyclopedic value at this time. --Crossmr 04:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearview Mall[edit]

Just a list of stores, not very notable. To see a similar debate refer to this [5], delete Yanksox 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Cyde↔Weys 13:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hester Chapone[edit]

Extremly non notable person Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women sports announcers[edit]

Serves absolutely no purpose. It could certainly be expanded, but it would almost have to be in the form of a list, and there's already Category:Women sports announcers. fuzzy510 04:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 13:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeside Shopping Center[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable mall, the page is nothing but a list of stores, could be labeled as an advert. Delete Yanksox 04:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe even the last three. MoTo's sole talk page entry is a recent indefinite block by admins , btw Bwithh 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shops at Canal Place[edit]

A list of malls, seems like it could be labeled an advert. Not notable, delete Yanksox 04:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for pressing, Zappa, I'm just curious what the rationale is. Yanksox 23:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mostly Rainy 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFTAC[edit]

Non-notable group. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about 4,570 for FFTAC on google FFTAC found on http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?acronym=FFTAC FFTAC found on http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/FFTAC FFTAC has is a recognized non profit in the USA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.177.28 (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 as non-notable bio. Royboycrashfan 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margarite Mae-Bales[edit]

Vanity page. Meteshjj 04:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logical dirt[edit]

Vanity Meteshjj 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ott Jud[edit]

Keep. Featured in various fechtbuchs, though I don't know of any translations of the wrestling portions online. More information available at The ARMA. --Fean 06:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable person; top result on Google search is Wikipedia article. Freddie 01:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable person; well-known in Western martial arts circles. There's a lot in life you can't find on Google, you know. Ken

Ott Jud is one of the most important grappling master in Western Martial Arts. Many of the fight books of the 1400s and 1500s describe and illustrate Master Ott's grappling techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.39.29 (talk • contribs)

Keep. Expand, if anything. It looks to me like 71.244.39.29 knows a thing of two about Mr Jud, and I'd like to know more about him. In any event: no reason to dump him other than the article is short of content, and that can be ameliorated. Deaconse 04:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...There is a trend in the Martial Arts community over the last decade to delve into the traditional arts of Western Europe. This has coincided with the translations of many period manuals. Ott is well known as a wrestler, and students of both western martial arts, and eastern systems, such as Judo/Jujitsu use sources such as Ott to determine the history of grappling techniques......where certain holds originated, and what variations were common between the different styles.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.177.96.38 (talk • contribs) .

  • I do see the name in sources cited by Peripitus above, but like him, I can't really figure out whether those are sufficient proof of notability. Crum375 21:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second War (Harry Potter)[edit]

Delete WP:NOT a J.K. Rowling book. This is a recapitulation of a giant chunk of Harry Potter, I guess. Details of a fictional book do not belong here, nor should we merge it anywhere. Note, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First War (Harry Potter), the result of which was delete. Through AfD'ing it, I came across this article. The rationale is identical, of course. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerome Fisher Program in Management and Technology[edit]

This article is about a joint degree program at a single university. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An individual academic program at a university is generally too narrow a topic to warrant an article of its own. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm aware of Wharton's reputation. If WP has a practice of including coverage of programs within articles covering educational institutions (seems sensible enough) then a Redirect may be the best resolution. Ande B. 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to Metropolitan90: Could. But the fact is, they don't. Penn, which is known for its emphasis on interdisciplinary programs, has only five. Most universities have none. --Alex S 06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to Ande B.: Take a look at the Harvard#Residential Houses and Yale#Residential colleges. If each house at one of these schools merits an article, then certainly each program within such a school merits an article. --Alex S 06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heartthrob[edit]

This article completely fails WP:NPOV in that defining someone as a "hearthrob" is inherently subjective, and also WP:V in that no entry has a citation to a published source. Kevin 05:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a slang definiton to me. Unless there is some standardized criteria to describe "heart throb" and that criteria goes beyond a slang definition, there seems to be nothing here of note. Ande B. 05:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PIMP houseparty[edit]

Non-notable social activity restricted to one university. -- RHaworth 05:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theinternetdotcom[edit]

Proposal for kiosks where web-o-phobes could get internet searches done for them and printed out. Deletable as original research / crystal ballery and advert. Recommend for BJAODN. Despite the crudity of its web pages (eg. [9] and [10]), I think the guy is actually serious. -- RHaworth 06:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 23:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energizer_CHDCWB-4[edit]

Product seems minor and wholly irrelevant Tejastheory 06:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Computerjoe's talk 07:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EasyGroup[edit]

Speedy Delete Ok where do we start, this article is 100% pure unadulterated SPAM and its sole purpose is to advertise one company belonging to one individual and provide backlinks to various websites controlled by that individual. From my understanding of WIKIPEDIA using an article to provide SEO for web pages and positive publicity is in breech of several of WIKIPEDIA's conditions and objectives. I recommend a deletion on a variety of grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politakis (talk • contribs)

Surely fifth most famous, after you count Lakshmi Mittal Bwithh 20:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't Mittal is more famous in the UK. He is richer and more important on a global scale, but he's in a business that sells to other businesses, so it is of little interest to those who don't read the business pages. Stelios operates a high profile consumer brand and is familiar on TV. He has certainly been famous in the UK for longer. Abramovich is famous with the general public because he's associated with football, not because he made billions in oil and alunium; Sugar was also been involved in football and has his own TV show; and Branson is head and shoulders above all other British businessmen in fame because he's a marketing genius and has been involved in many consumer businesses. Steelmaking just doesn't interest the British general public much, especially when the plants are overseas. Piccadilly 06:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thessaloniki 69ers[edit]

This article is just a stub (plus links copied from the hockey article) that makes an unreferenced claim that a hockey team called the Thessaloniki 69ers will exist in the year 2012 in Greece. Google turns up nothing on the topic. mjb 07:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almadeus Star Gioeli[edit]

Not quite notable, Google test shows only a few pages, mostly about his book Cancer is Good for You. Plus, the user who wrote this page is likely the author himself, as his name is the same. Possibly violates NPOV. --Geopgeop 07:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyright violation (A8). The JPStalk to me 09:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 7 Gallery[edit]

Is not encyclopedic content, possible copyvio bdude Talk 07:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 18:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francyne Walker[edit]

No claim of notability. Thue | talk 07:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ribu Polachirackal-Tharakan[edit]

This vanity page fails biography notability criteria, and it does not cite sources. It is not linked from elsewhere on Wikipedia Grouse 08:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRCDig[edit]

Non-notable website; fails WP:WEB. Haakon 08:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 optional. Mailer Diablo 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal Deluxe[edit]

There is not one reliable or official source ANYWHERE stating this movie is coming out or is even on the drawing board. There is also no mention of this movie on the IMDB. Seems like just an internet rumor, which really isn't all that believable, considering the age of both actors in question, and one is running AGAIN for Governor. --JOK3R 20:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
fix nomination, listing under today's date, 81.104.165.184 09:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- RHaworth 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoil (band)[edit]

NZ band that fails to meet any of the notability requirements --Dom 10:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Speedy delete. They don't even claim notability. CaptainJ (t | c | e) 11:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guus Hermans[edit]

Probably a hoax, with a small side bet on non-notable. Name gets eight google hits, none seem soccer related. Editors' other contributions all have similar problems. Deprodded Weregerbil 10:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerz Realm Network[edit]

Delete Reads like an advert, soo little information it is virtually impossible to wikify. Websites seem to be very minor and google hit wise there are less than 200. To demonstrate how minor this is, one of their "main" realms has been decided to be removed from Wikipedia's article on RuneScape (On which RunescapeRealm is about) when there were 5 links (All 5 are gone now) J.J.Sagnella 11:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 13:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Spannaus[edit]

nn failed political candidate - delete KleenupKrew 11:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games considered the worst ever[edit]

This article has been acknowledged for a long time to be nothing but POV. Additionally, much of it appears to be original research. Despite this acknowledgment, the article remains the same: uncited, unencyclopedic, and unprofessional. Chris Griswold 12:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Prodego talk 01:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter rowan (model)[edit]

Some assertion of notability, but it's awful, really. Delete unless expanded. The JPStalk to me 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Pole. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pole (object)[edit]

Two reasons for nomination. "Not a Dictionary" is the main one. The second is that the page did contain text that was proposed for merge into two other articles. I have performed the merge and turned it into a disambig page, but I keep coming back to the "Not a dictionary" reason. Thus the seciond is a subset of the first Fiddle Faddle 13:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really should write more clearly. What I mean is that a "pole" as an object, is something that requires a dictionary definition, not an encyclopaedic definition. As an article here it is not important. As a disambig page it is not important either because wikilinks to Pole (object) are, to me, not encyclopaedic links, so should not really exist either, though links to a particular kind of pole, such as a barber's pole make perfect sense because they are enclyclopaedic. Lack of this disambig page ought therefore to lead to better articles since they will, one hopes, link to the correct places. Fiddle Faddle 13:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime iku[edit]

Not many google hits. Seems like spam. Nearly Headless Nick 13:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. Does the vote still count? --Andeh 16:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling music artists[edit]

This list is stupid it is just made up and Michaeld Jackson is the best but he is not top. I think it is not npov and it should be removed MoTo 14:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to earlier nominations:
--LambiamTalk 14:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian values[edit]

Speculation, point-of-view and original research. The term is near-impossible to define in a NPOV manner due to the wide range of values it can possibly represent. Presently a subtle attack article. michael talk 14:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, incredibly notable term in American politics --Cyde↔Weys 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family values[edit]

Speculation, point-of-view and original research. The term is near-impossible to define in a NPOV manner due to the wide range of values it can possibly represent. michael talk 14:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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-band. Kusma (討論) 19:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Phoenix[edit]

Article is about a non-notable band. Searches on Google and Yahoo don't turn up any other link to this band. Nothing links here from other wikipages Andante1980 14:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- RHaworth 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buttamoose[edit]

No relevant google hits at all. Looks like an hoax. Nearly Headless Nick 14:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was not enough of a consensus to delete, but sufficient not to give the guy his own article, so very slight merge into Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars as the founder. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Yong-chuan[edit]

Claims to be "well-known" leader of overseas Chinese students. Well, obviously not, as I see no evidence that he is well-known. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:56, 26 May 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, Mailer Diablo 14:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This gratuitous comment does not help your cause. If he's notable, show that he's notable. --Nlu (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Punkmorten 23:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Noise Board[edit]

Delete. Non-notable local messageboard. Alexa rank of over 800,000. discospinster 14:19, 26 May 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, Mailer Diablo 14:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marquette Frye[edit]

Whatever the historical significance of his arrest being connected to the start of the Watts riot, there simply isn't enough information available to make him himself notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:17, 26 May 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, Mailer Diablo 14:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, consensus reached. Punkmorten 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie de Roland-Peel[edit]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Laos, Burma and Viet Nam are all republics, and totalitarian ones at that, I find it impossible to believe that a group made up of people pretending to royal status in the countries in question would be able to have any dialogue whatsoever with the Communist governments of Laos, Burma and Viet Nam. Even in Europe, such as in Austria, Greece and Italy, no republic would even deal with an actual royal figure until they disavowed their favored status and accepted the legality and legitimacy of the ruling government.
Further, in the article posted by the same clique which posted this on the "Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League" it says that they hold that the last legitimate ruler of Viet Nam was the French puppet Emperor Bao Dai. Therefore, how could they hope to have a dialogue with a government they refuse to even accept as a legitimate power? Additionally, the website for the British House of Commons, which lists all committees of every kind, has no mention of this group, and it seems highly unlikely that they ever would considering that the United Kingdom and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam fully recognize each other, have exchanged ambassadors and are on friendly relations.
If the British government was actually sponsoring a group composed of royal pretenders claiming status from the countries in question, and working in opposition to the ruling government, I assure you the Vietnamese government would protest loudly and probably break off all diplomatic relations with the British. -Nguyen Van Tuan
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JavaSVN[edit]

Appears to be an advertisement. No incoming links, no categories. kingboyk 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Drini with no summary, probably for the copyvio. For future reference: There's a defined process for handling copyvios; see WP:COPYVIO for information. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Dissolved Solids[edit]

The information on this page was just copied over from http://www.tdsmeter.com/abouttds.html Benzi 16:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weed patch[edit]

This article doesn't assert notability or meet the criteria for notability outlined in the guidelines furthermore, it is written in a completely un-neutral way Benjaminstewart05 16:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Picolo[edit]

Does not seem sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 23:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Cabino[edit]

I have thus far been unable to find major, independent sources that say this guy is notable. Making a chocolate sneaker is interesting and all, but the vanity of the page and the lack of real assertions of notability are suspect. Plus, one of the two contributors to the page is User:Cabino. If anyone can find major news coverage or something to support this artist, bring it forward. Otherwise, this page should be deleted. Grandmasterka 17:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age 3[edit]

Completing AfD. Nominated by anon IP 81.104.165.184 (talk · contribs) who couldn't complete nom. No reason for AfD given, but I suspect it's based on crystal-ballery with no hard information at all about the planned movie. Fan1967 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good guess, though you'd have saved yourself some trouble by looking at the talk page :-) 81.104.165.184 18:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there is hard info: "It will be released in 2009. It will be made by Blue Sky Studios." I think it needs a cleanup, but not deletion. 81.170.50.197 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it definitely will be released in 2009? Or maybe 2010? Or that it will even be released at all? These are reasons we have the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 81.104.165.184 18:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but you can certainly say "scheduled to be released in". Otherwise why is there a special template for future film releases? 81.170.50.197 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that, but you'd need some pretty solid and up-to-date references. I imagine the original intention of the template was for films 3-4 months, rather than years away. 81.104.165.184 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Rechargeable battery. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse charging[edit]

not noteable enough. it is a batteries feature, merge a sentence or two there. Yy-bo 17:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Griffin[edit]

This article was speedied under CSD A7 before, but apparently recreated. Since another attempt to speedy would probably just begin a cycle of delete-recreate-delete ad nauseum, I have brought this to AFD. Subject has not done anything of note for inclusion in Wikipedia, even for a model. Therefore, I propose that this article be deleted unless we can find some reason why she should have an entry in a general encyclopedia. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFAICT, most ghits are commercial sites, many linked to each other. What we need for WP inclusion is a neutral site, that reliably indicates to us that she is well known, i.e. notable per WP:BIO. If there is one, I couldn't find it. Remember 'neutral' means, among other criteria, not making money from the promotion. Crum375 10:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any notable persons are acceptable for WP, porn stars or not. But they must be notable by WP criteria, per WP:BIO and WP:RS. Just a bunch of interlinked ads and promos do not confer notability. There must be a neutral source (e.g. that does not get money from promoting the person) that vouches for notability. If you think a person is notable, all you need is to point to one such neutral and reliable source, and it's a keeper. Just saying they are notable won't cut it. Crum375 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Many' > 1, right? Can you please cite one such neutral and reliable site, that shows she's notable, that does not get paid to promote her? That's all it would take to get her in. Crum375 15:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So from now on, if this one gets kept, all an aspiring porn star, eager for free Wiki advertizing has to do, is get in a minor dispute with an agent, have a minor lawsuit, get cited for it in the porn press, and voila - instant free lifetime wiki-publicity. Somehow I don't think this is what our Founding wiki-Fathers had in mind for an encyclopedia, nor is it my own read of porn notability criteria, but I could be wrong. Crum375 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the sum of all human knowledge. Any "free Wiki advertizing" is incidental, we're providing coverage in a neutral and verifiable manner. If you have any doubts as to what the founding fathers had in mind, why not just go ask one. Silensor 02:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this may not be PC to say, but I wonder if the keep-delete ratio is a function of the easiness-on-the-eyes quotient of the particluar AfD candidate. Crum375 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Slaczka[edit]

Non-notable small company executive, has ingored request for notability proof for an extended period, during which additional edits have occurred. Kickstart70-T-C 18:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as an admitted hoax. -- Kjkolb 01:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures Of Saltboy And Pepperlad[edit]

Appear to be unpublised superheroes, at least google knows not of them. Deprodded. Weregerbil 18:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapunzel Unbraided[edit]

Completing nother incomplete AFD, nominated by 81.104.165.184 (talk · contribs). Per note on talk page: unreferenced speculation, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Fan1967 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We know the 2010 Olympics will take place. This one doesn't even have a firm cast. It's pure speculation and drawing board plans. If we have less deserving articles, they should be deleted, too. Fan1967 21:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(post edit conflict) Bzzt... fallacy! That, and (as Fan1967 also pointed out) the false assumption that all future-dated articles that currently exist are equally worthy of being there. 81.104.165.184 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, good point. Regardless, this is still a movie by Disney, a highly reputable company and considering there are now sources, there is no reason to delete.--SomeStranger (T | C) 14:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 23:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Hits (Nancy Ajram)[edit]

Hoax. I asked about it on the main Nancy Ajram talk page and got a response that there's been no talk about it aside from this rumor article. Metros232 18:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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-fied. Mailer Diablo 21:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swank[edit]

Dicdef followed by ...I don't know what. Transwikied, speedied, prodded, deprodded, the works. I doubt Wiktionary wants any part of this. Weregerbil 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Napsis[edit]

Article has almost no content. "Napsis" gets about 940 Google hits, many of which are completely unrelated. Article doesn't really assert notability, and I can't find any myself. (Their product, nTPV, may well qualify for an article, but that's kind of unrelated.) It was tagged for cleanup in October, 2004 (not that there was anything to clean up, really), and in August, 2005 HopeSeekr of xMule added a notice that said "This is a non-notable company that was created by a person from auna.net, a Spanish ISP. It is thus probably purely self-promotional and thus should be removed." Not surprisingly, doing that didn't get the article removed, but what did happen is that Steve espinola removed the notice and the clean-up tag. Steve espinola is now apparently blocked for sockpuppetry and there was apparently some kind of a thing going on over there that I don't really want any part of, but despite the apparently unrelated dramatics, the article doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. -- Captain Disdain 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project X (team)[edit]

Neither the individuals involved, nor the team itself, are notable. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nom withdrawn. Punkmorten 22:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callisto (band)[edit]

Was tagged for speedy under WP:CSD A7 for failure to assert notability but was told it might just meet WP:MUSIC so am bringing here Ydam 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am withdrawing this nomination in light of crazyrussions evidence Ydam 19:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ok seriously, gang. The consensus here is that this large, well written article, which has survived 4 prior AfDs needs to stay. I think at this point there is not much point in nominating it again. --++Lar: t/c 05:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films considered the worst ever (fifth nomination)[edit]

This AfD brought this article to my attention. Consensus reviews are, by their very nature, point of view, and although "mass opinion" may deem these movies awful (and I don't necessarily disagree), the simple fact that a majority holds an opinion does not, by its very nature, render that opinion an objective fact. Although this article is well-written, it is nevertheless subjective opinion and thus merits deletion. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Blue 28[edit]

Previously voted on VfD in 2004. Since then, the article hasn't evolved much and it isn't notable, other than the fact that porn actress Traci Lords had her scenes removed after she was found to have been under-age. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 23:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Nuss[edit]

Non-notable, vanity, not backed up by reliable sources Hobbeslover talk/contribs 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Royboycrashfan 21:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flatman and Ribbon[edit]

This article is about the punchline to one joke. Chris Griswold 19:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, as the creator has said that he'll transwiki and I assume that if he's not done it already he's copied the text. Please contact me if that's not the case and the deleted content is needed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TAO Developer Notes and related articles[edit]

and also:

This is a series of tutorials: it should be moved to Wikibooks, then deleted from Wikipedia. Please be nice to the author; they are clearly acting in good faith here. -- The Anome 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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:MUSIC --++Lar: t/c 05:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motionless[edit]

No evidence this article meets notability requirements of WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 20:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Target[edit]

NN band. Francs2000 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven's Pizza[edit]

Notable enough to be in Wikipedia? JGorton 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthroid[edit]

Does this fit in to an encyclopedia? JGorton 20:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:User page --Zoz (t) 13:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 23:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roads to Success[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable school program. It looks like it's in about 10 schools at most. Google's a little tricky because "Roads to Success" is a popular term in other arenas. "Roads to Success" McKelvey only returns 7 hits. Metros232 21:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andorozon[edit]

Delete/Transwiki as non-notable, comes across as marketing abuse of wikipedia. Article is an article about a self-published comic book about furry cyborg anthroid (also up for afd) superheroes with attractively tight-fitting costumes (which is possibly an argument for keep, but doesnt quite do it for me) which scores just 164 google hits. Creator should be told to Transwiki material to the furophile Wikifur, if he wants, which is really his target market anyway. Sincere congratz to the Wikifur community, by the way, for starting their own wiki. If only more fancrufters on wikipedia would do the same. Bwithh 21:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Creator didn't make this page, I (RVDDP2501) did, I have not read any of the comics, I just found the characters interesting and there was little info I could find in one place, so I made the page, How do I stop this page and Extinctioners from being deleted—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RVDDP2501 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 June, 2006 (UTC).

RVDDP2501, don't take the afd personally, its not to undervalue your hard work. The concern is that your subject may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia on notability grounds. If you can show verifiable proof that this comic is read and known widely enough, your article would pass the Afd test. I also suggested that the highly commendable project, Wikifur may a better home (with a better audience) for your efforts. All you need to do is copy and paste to that wiki. Bwithh 23:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you are not the creator of these comics, and do not have permission from the creator, then there are significant copyright violations from the use of the comic images in this way (would also apply if you transferred the images to Wikifur) Bwithh 23:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RVDDP250, I am a furry fan, but I think this level of fandom is excessive for a general encyclopedia. At the most, the first part could be left. All the character detail should be left on WikiFur. also, above you state that you have not read the comics... however, the text make it sound like you have drawn them extensively... VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. The numbers here are borderline, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Television interference (weak signal) has a much clearer consensus, took place at the same time and the same arguments apparently apply (certainly editors appear to have put forward the same opinion in both), so I feel it is appropriate to treat both articles the same way. If anyone particularly wants to transwiki and hasn't done it yet, leave me a message and I'll retrieve the content. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television interference (radio transmitter interference)[edit]

This is reallty really a how to. How tos are include in what is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Vegaswikian 21:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 16:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television interference (weak signal)[edit]

This is reallty really a how to. How tos are include in what is covered by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Vegaswikian 21:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 – Gurch 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extinctioners[edit]

Keep/Clean up Why is the Extinctioner artical up for deletion? If it is just because of its popularity, then it has already been proven that the Extinctioner comic series already has a large fanbase with numerous fangroups and a distrabution region that spreads over two continents. It may not be as popular as "Spiderman", "X-men", "Daredevil", or "Star Wars", but many underground comics are not widely known. Does the artical provide too much information? In a sense, yes. It focuses too much on the characters themselves than the actual history of the continuity of Extinctioners and the comic's history. If the artical in question is being targeted because of it's assosiation to Furdom, then there is no reason to continue this discussion. Should Extinctioners move to Wikifur? No, I do not believe that it should. If I may, I would like to point out several other comics, such as Shanda the Panda[[17]], Atomic Mouse[[18]], Albedo Anthropomorphics[[19]], and Buck O'Hare[[20]], are not apart of Wikifur despite the fact that they are listed as Furry Comics[[21]] right here in Wikipedia. If Extinctioners is truely classified as a Furry Comic here on Wikipedia, and the Administrators seek to move it to Wikifur, then why is it allowed that other Furry Comics remain undistubred? Kantorock 17:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep&Transwiki Upon further revision of this article, I've noticed that it does, indeed contain a uselessly large amount of information. It should be cut down to a minimal size, with only a short summary of main characters as a group, and the rest should be transferred to a main article on Wikifur. Though the article has a right to exist on Wikipedia, it does not need more than a simple summary and a link to a more thorough article on a personal site. Dikastis

Delete/Transwiki as nonnotable, possible marketing abuse of wikipedia. Same as anthroid and Andorozon afds. Too obscure:perhaps as many as 674 google hits. The subject is more cyborg furry crimefighters in tight-fitting costumes. Plus some repetition with the Andorozon article. Transwiki to [Wikifur] if the creator wants to. Bwithh 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give the guy a break, he's new to the process. I've been trying to manage unsigned votes since they started coming in. He's got a big fan base, it's not surprising that some will show up to try and support him. I'll strike the multiple votes. Tony Fox 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it says its being published at the moment by Shanda Fantasy Arts, which is a very small scale publisher, a step above self-publishing. They pay "up to $10" per page - $5 for pin up art. The last copy of the Extinctioners is dated March 2005 and the one before that, March 2004, and the one before that Jan. 2003... seems to be annual publishing of 40 page comics. Couldnt find a Jan-March 2006 edition though. Bwithh 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one's a tough one then. I'll withdraw my vote until we get some more feedback. --Merovingian {T C @} 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the page as a form of marketing! (I am not the creator of the comics) what must I do to prevent deletion?! an why now is is being concidered for Deletion, I worked hard on this page, why is it being concidered for deletionRVDDP2501 17:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RVDDP2501, don't take the afd personally, its not to undervalue your hard work. The concern is that your subject may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia on notability grounds. If you can show verifiable proof that this comic is read and known widely enough, your article would pass the Afd test. I also suggested that the highly commendable project, Wikifur may a better home (with a better audience) for your efforts. All you need to do is copy and paste to that wiki. Bwithh 23:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you are not the creator of these comics, and do not have permission from the creator, then there are significant copyright violations from the use of the comic images in this way (would also apply if you transferred the images to Wikifur) Bwithh 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OH TRUST ME, I GOT SHAWNTAE HOWARD'S PERMISSION AND SUPPORT, JUST ASK HIM AT <howart@peoplepc.com>, HE'LL TELL YOU.RVDDP2501 16:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE: A user already mentioned that this comic is an annual production. To delete it from the wiki just for this seems illogical and unfair. So, please don't remove this comic from this site. Thanks! ^_^—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.189.29.121 (talk • contribs) 10:22, Jun 5, 2006 (UTC).

SHAWNTAE HOWARD, CREATOR Extinctioners is a quarterly comic not an annual, but due to injuries, graduate studies, and serious family issues over the past 2 years, yes, it has come out with only 2 issues a year, the primary comic and it's annual. However, I do not see why that would cause it for grounds for deletion from wikipedia, nor do I personally consider the comic book 'furry' since it also features a main human cast so I'd say I personally feel a little insulted that the idea that it belongs on wikifur is it's appropriate location. The creator of the page did indeed e-mail me and asked me for permission to create the page, which I consented and gave him information on character bios, which he used in his article (such as the person who created the less detailed wikifur page did). The company that the comic is published by has been in existance for 10 years and still is currently publishing, infact an issue of Extinctioners is available for pre-order right this moment in the current month's Diamond Previews listed under Shanda Fantasy Arts. It's readership spans the globe, with the internet only helping it's notority, with only the limited resources of foreign readers being able to easily aquire an issue. The comic has also spanned a number of yahoo fan groups with memberships in the thousands. I'm not sure who reported that the book was not worthy of a wikipage in the first place, probably out of some sort of spite, but if onther comic related material can have a page I don't see why this one doesn't as well. It's a comic that's been in existance for 10 years now, regardless of it's frequncey of issues per year, there still are issues per year, with the latest currently in production from me (and it's page lenght went from 32, to 48, now down to 40 of which I do all of the work on from writing, penciling, inking, and greytoning, so yes, it takes a one man production crew time to complete when I'm also a working teacher who's taking graduate classes and supporting a family at the same time.) I'm not sure if this is enough proof to maintain the page on wiki, but if no, please feel free to e-mail me at howart@peoplepc.com and I can further answer any inuquires. Additional note, a poster stated that the last publishede issue was March 2005, this is incorrect, the latest issue #15 came out just 2 months ago, the SFA page has not yet been updated by it's webmaster. http://www.rabbitvalley.com/item_6468_1959___Extinctioners-Volume-2-Number-15.html Is proof of its existance and availability.

Keep Proof that extinctioners is 'known and read widely enough' could be derived from the membership lists of the following yahoo groups, which (usually) list user name, real name, age and location. The groups also indicate an active and ongoing interest in the publication. Though the information is publicly available, the groups are protected by yahoo's content rating system, which requires viewers to sign in.

As a note Bwithh, the phrase 'read and known widely enough' does not seem to appear anywhere in wikipedia, let alone as a standard. Is there a more specific/official requirement you are reffering to? - ANTIcarrot 13:20 GMT 5/6/06


I have heard of Extinctioners a number of times, though I've yet to read it. It seems to me that the three pages referencing it could easily be merged into one, combining 'anthroid' and 'Andorozon' as subtopics in the Extinctioners page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlesdeleroy (talk • contribs) .

'Andorozon' AND 'Extinctioners' are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Comics which at one point had a fictional crossover and should not be either deleted or mergedRVDDP2501 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to full keep based on non-trivial coverage as noted by the author below and the history of the magazine as compared to others with long-standing articles in Wikipedia - with the proviso that the article be pared down and cleaned up. Tony Fox 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Extinctioners is NOT Past its peak. IT is one of the most inventive, sexy, well drawn, Thought out comics that is out there. It still is colorful, well made, and creative even when other comics have lost its luster. The artist and writer have created the most colorful characters. THese characters are so different from each other it's amazing and inspirational. PAST its PEAK BAH! It still keeps going and will never grow old! This comic is a staple for the furry world :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs) . - comment placed at top of page, moved here. Tony Fox 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Transwiki Cleanup This would be an excellent article for WikiFur. It does seem to be a bit heavy for the regular WikiPedia. (The character sheets section, for one, I think could be deleted.) Most of the characters seem to have 2 illustrations, which is excessive. VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked on WikiFur, and they already have an article on Extinctioners. The main characters have their own articles there, which I do not think should be done here. Basically, I think this article just needs to be trimmed down. VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 23:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawntae Howard: Creator Perhaps it is felt that it belongs on Wikifur is because the main characters happen to be humaniod animals. However, I as it's creator do not consider the comic "Furry" as it is traditionally thought of at all, and while the individual who worked on the page focused on those characters, they were in the process of including the human characters from the comic as well, as he was asking for information about those particular characters as well. Also, I notice that on wikipedia an article for the comic Gold Digger, written by Fred Perry is allowed, a comic that also started out with a strong anthropomorphic cast and features human main characters as well, yet it is not recommended that this article would be an excellent article for Wikifur. I've noted that there is an article on Albedo Anthropomorphics, a sci fi comic with an all anthropomorphic cast on Wikipedia, yet it hasn't been recommended as an article best suited for Wikifur (when it could be argued that that book was a large influence in the creation of many anthro related comic book titles, including the much acclaimed Usagi Yojimbo, who got it's start within the pages of that comic.) May I also note that very short articles on the 'furry' comic titles of Furrlough, Wild Life, and Genus have Wikipedia articles, yet not comments that these would be best suited for Wikifur, when techincally since they do advertise themselves AS furry comics, it would make since that is where they belong. If it's a question of who publishes Extinctioners, would it be more relevent if it were published by Antartic Press, who I am ironically in negotiations to do just that? Evidence of it's continued production can be seen here: http://www.furaffinity.net/full/99828/ ,

http://www.furaffinity.net/full/99819/ , and http://www.furaffinity.net/full/99819/. These are examples of pages currently in production for the next issue (Apologies for not adding shorting links, I'm not familiar with how to do that on these pages).

It is also stated that the reasons it would be better on Wikifur is because it already has an article done by someone on it, but may I also point out that many of Wikipedia subjects are repeated on Wikifur as well, such as the above stated articles on Antartic Press, Gold Digger, Atomic Mouse (also published by Shanda Fantasy Arts), and Furrlough to just give a brief example. Granted, one source may be more informative than the other depending on the individual who wrote them, however, I haven't seen complaints that one belongs on the other as I have with the Extinctioners article, which may now be on Wikifur, but was not as detailed as the one on wikipedia until the creator of the article just recently moved it there due to this complaint and deletion hearing. And if it is felt it is a bit 'heavy' for wikipedia due to it's amount of informative information about the characters, then I'd like to point out any of your other superhero article such as Justice League or X-Men related characters. The fact that so much information on each character can be found should be a testiment to just how much the individual who created the page has gotten from the comics and online sources. Perhaps if the creator trimmed down the amount of images in the article to just one per character it discusses that would be acceptable, though I'd like to point out these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-men and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Frost as an example of an article with multiple images featuring a single character.

Or is the bottem line that because the book is published by an independent company rather than one of the mainstream companies it's validity as a wikipedia article is not as up to standard or is it it's content that makes it so (which again, I'll say again, if its due to the anthropomorphic cast that has been talked about in the article thus far is the issue, there are a number of human ones too, if humans make people less xenophobic). I do not say that Wikifur is a bad place, nor that I'm disturbed that an article on it has appeared there, but I as the creator, do not consider the comic furry anymore than the creator of Gold Digger or Ninja High School would just because they use anthropomorphic characters in their story telling. I hope that's not the case, because if someone decides to do an article on the currently acclaimed small press comic Mouse Guards, I hope it too won't be considered more appropriate to be a wikifur article because it's cast are anthropomorphic mice. 207.69.137.34Shawntae Howard

Mr. Howard, My comment about this article being a bit heavy for the general WikiPedia has nothing to do with the fact that the article as it currently stands is primarily about the anthro/furry characters. Rather, it is about the sheer number of images, and the level of detail. The weight of the characters, for Ghu's sake? Date of birth in a non-standard year count (when is year 989?)
your pointing out Emma Frost as a comparison is partially invalid, as there is more text per picture, and the images are scattered throughout the text. In Extinctioners, once down into the character info, there is almost 50/50 text to image. I have also pointed the main author of the page toward some templates the Comic Project has that I thought might be useful. VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Clean up I'm a little bit disturbed, actually, that this entry is being contested on the grounds of popularity rather than factual validity or intellectual property. There are no certain stipulations in the Wikipedia policy that outline exactly how popular certain media or certain topics must be in order to justify their existence. I think the reasons for this are clear. Wikipedia would lose a lot of its intellectual appeal if it filtered articles on the grounds of popularity. An infrequently visited article isn't irrelevant, and no one can truly predict when a thread will be popular or unpopular. The other arguments for the removal of the Extinctioners entry seem to imply that the author of the article did not have permission of the creator, which he did (see Mr. Howard's entry) or that the article is being used as a 'marketing tool', an expression just as subjective as 'popularity'. If file space and/or bandwidth are the core issues behind the loosely used expressions I just stated, we can take steps to reduce image file size and streamline the article. However, this is likely not the issue since it was stated that the entry receives little traffic. I don't wish to slander anyone with claims of bias, but I can't help but think that irrational and emotional motives are governing some of the claims to remove this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.54.67 (talk • contribs) .

Keep/Clean up The Comic is past it's peak but still very Notable in underground circles. I've seen Extinctioners Full sized Plushes, two video games, Custome Heroclicks, A role playing game, a Soundtrack and there are at least Two Spinoff comics, purhaps more I Havn't located yet. it's been featured by Diamond Preveiws twice, and it has several fanclubs that have dozens of members. It's very underground, and fans aren't totoaly organized but they DO number quite a bit. Shanda Fantasy Arts isn't "Next to Self-Publishing" Either. It's a private publishing group run by comic book insiders. its very small-print but well known in underground comic circles. They've worked with Stan Lee, Dan Decarlo and Stan Sakai in the past. Exticntioners IS well know, just in a diferent way. I say the article should be cleaned up for Wiki standards, IE Drop the extensive profiles and talk a bit more about the actual history of the comic rather than it's fiction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshua the samurai (talk • contribs) .

I've just reorganized and moved some comments to the bottom where they're supposed to be. This was looking a mess. Tony Fox 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To Vik-Thor OH, well, that makes more sense then and gives some concrete information of what can be done to prevent the page's deletion. Now the page creator actually has something to go on, because before, one has to admit, the reasonings given for possible deletion were a little on the vague side. I will inform him to reduce the number of images and needless data then. Out of curiosity and personal noisiness, just why was the article nominated for deletion in the first place? What was the inital grounds or complaint in the first place? 207.69.137.13 Shawntae Howard

The first reason for deletion is the one right at the top of the list, under the big red box. Basically, it's a question of notability as defined by the site guidelines.Tony Fox 04:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Then I would assume that since it has been proven contrary to the point that the topic has more notability than originally thought and it has as much notability as other comics that currently have articles on wikipedia, that the issue for deletion, if that is afterall the primary reason for it's possible deletion, has been more than met? Again the latest issue of the comic was released in February 2006, it's next publication is in the current Diamond's Preview for release in August 2006, evidence presented in the form of links show that it has a very active online presence with an active fan base. And that it is considered a comic book first, not pigeon holed as a "furry comic". In addition, Extinctioners has gotten a full page review 3 yearas ago in The Comic Buyer's Guide and received a B rating and it is currently listed among other comics in the 2006 edition of the Overstreet Price Guide, currently available in any national book store such as Barnes and Noble or Borders.207.69.139.9 Shawntae Howard

Please don't mark in more than one 'keep' opinion per person, please. And this process runs for several days; the decision will be made by an administrator at the end of that process. Tony Fox 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Clean up Don't let the name fool you, I had to think a while before commenting here. I agree with the gentleperson waaaaaay up there about how there's *way* too many images. Cut it down to a cover in the comic 'infobox', a small 'group shot', and maybe a villian. Also, leave out all the 'stats' in the writeups. We really don't need to know details about *every* character. --;; If there was ever an entry that needed editing--read: trimmed to fit--this is it. Furrysaint 15:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it's common practice to point out new or short-edit-count users in AfD discussions, because often they're being recruited to join the argument on the incorrect consideration that AfD is a vote, which it is not. Taking a poke at someone for doing what's pretty well standard procedure is not a good way to make an impression in an AfD discussion. Second, I'd like to point out that while the notability guidelines are just that, they're also the basis for keeping or deleting about every article of the hundred or so that hit AfD every day. Finally, I'm kind of trying to help *keep* the article, so I'm a bit upset that you'd suggest I'm doing something to not keep it. Please assume good faith. Thanks. Tony Fox 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will be pleased to assume good faith when others do the same, sir. You tell me to assume good faith, but permit Bwithh to continue assuming lack of good faith withotu comment, and then tell me that something that clearly states it is not a guideline is, in fact, a guideline. I am not attempting to "make an impression". I am pointing out inconsistencies that others have not mentioned. I would ask you to please reconcile your words with your actions, sir. If you wish to continue conversing I will see about creating a user account so that you do not have the impression of holding a conversation with a shadow, but until such time, I remain respectfully anonymous. 12:32 EDT 07 June 2006
What I'm trying to do is keep this discussion from going to hell, and while I do agree that Bwithh has been actively pointing out new editors and has made a couple of comments I'd rather he hadn't, arguing with him over it is basically counterproductive. As for notability, I'd suggest you take a look through the AfD pages for previous days and survey how many of them use 'NN' or 'non-notable' as an argument. Once again, I'm not against the article - I'm going to give it a rewrite this evening and try my best to save the damn thing. If you'd like to continue discussion, I suggest you do so at my talk page. Tony Fox 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it has been pointed out its pretty standard to note new users and editors with a short history in an afd discussion (for similar reasons, we have the the warning sign template for this kind of situation). This practice doesn't break the good faith guideline. Anyway, I apologize if certain people feel offended at my occasional attempt at humour (I try not to be too serious all the time in the afd process). I'm not opposed to furry fan culture per se. I just feel that the hard work going into the Extinctioners article is more suited to a home on the excellent Wikifur project than in a general encyclopedia, in terms of notability etc. Bwithh 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User account created and discussion moved to your talk page, as promised and requested. CydoniaRaven 17:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there is now an article for each character over at the WikiFur version. Perhaps something short to summarize here, with a link to the main content over at WikiFur? GreenReaper 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

My Log in Name is Lordgriffin, and yess I woudl like to talk about Extinctioners. i hope this is within the scope of what is permissible. I am currently a Major in military Inteligence deployed with the U.S. Army in Iraq, and I am a fan of teh comix.

Your service is gowing and known and it was quite extraordinary that you posted on extinctioners, and I admit i am a little distressed that you ight delet it. I do not know much about your administration but if tere is a large concern about content, it woudl seem a better policy, if yoru able, to screen these things BEFORE hand.

I thin what concernes me most is he way our society looks atthese policies, it is actually more accepted to write and draw about torture and murder, then it is to be suggestive about sexuality.

Your site is of course yours, I hope you will find Extinctioners DOES have a place here, but I recognize you will do what you consider best for your site

If allowed a Vote I vote to KEEP Extinctioners

Major Norman M. Fabian

Message to Lordgriffin

Hi, I am the guy who originally created the Wikipedia.org Extinctioners page, I am amazed and suprised that my page has not only recieved so much support to keep "alive" but from where and from whom, I am so glad that my page has been so well recieved that various people from nearly every corner of the globe has protested the deletion of the Extinctioners Wikipedia.org page and I would like to thank every one for their support and for those who are saddened by the current state of the Wikipedia.org page can find a somewhat better version at http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Extinctioners which now has individual character pages (make sure you all check th bottom of the page for Extinctioners Characters)and I hope everyone likes it, now back to Lordgriffin, hope you and your friends like the Wikifur.com version and hope you and every one you know makes it out of Iraq in one piece, Good Luck and God speed from RVDDP2501 and from Barbados (home country)RVDDP2501 10:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atkins Diet Discussion Forums[edit]

A page with no content except external links, this page has no encyclopaedic value and wikipedia is not a web portal. Usrnme h8er 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable biography by Fang Aili. -- Kjkolb 00:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Smith[edit]

Not notable at all - consider speedy delete? not marked as speedy delete in case anyone disagrees manchesterstudent 22:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now marked also as speedy delete --manchesterstudent 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. nn bio. --++Lar: t/c 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gomez[edit]

NN standup comedian. 0 Google hits for Joseph Jarod Gomez, 80 for "Joe Gomez" standup and 35 for "Joseph Gomez" standup. Many wikilinks point to the article, but note that the article creator has recently added (spam?) links to this article all over the place. In addition he seems to share the name with a wrestler etc. Punkmorten 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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:MUSIC --++Lar: t/c 05:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Windmill EP[edit]

Released "digitally" (ie. for download, not published) by a band with no apparent notability that fails WP:MUSIC. See also Motionless AFD - Motor (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Cyde↔Weys 13:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne crookes[edit]

Not notable at all - POV - low google manchesterstudent 22:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - vanispamvertisment. --++Lar: t/c 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting merit[edit]

Non-notable website hosting service, ((prod)) removed, reads like an advertisement. Delete. Evan Seeds (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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). What would be nifty would be if someone actually transwikied these to MA and THEN nomed them for deletion, then they'd go... Counting noses, the deletes have it, but we don't count noses, we judge consensus and the keeps on balance are strong enough IMHO that this is a no consensus. --++Lar: t/c 05:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small Magellanic Cloud (Star Fleet Universe)[edit]

This seems like a very specialized part of a fictional world. I realize people like articles on their favorite TV shows and movies and bands, but I don't see how this article fits into a general encyclopedia. I like to see articles on real world topics myself, but that's just my preference. Isn't there a place for this stuff at Memory Alpha? Erik the Rude 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment All these Star Fleet Universe articles should be put up for AfD discussion - this is rampant runaway fancruft, and most of it probably should be transferred to Memory Alpha or another Trek wiki Bwithh 07:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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:CORP --++Lar: t/c 04:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switch perception[edit]

I can find zero Google hits for "switch perception" which refer to this company. There are only three hits for "Switch, Inc." + "Hugo Carrillo", and of those hits, one is a press release and the other hits don't seem to exist any more (or at least the page they go to no longer contains the information). The "famous and acclaimed" movie director Hugo Carrillo does not exist at imdb. There is a director named Francisco Vargas, though no executive producer by that name that I can find, but I don't know if the person I linked to is the same person or not. Ricardo Bárcelo-Villagrán also does not exist at imdb, and only has four Google hits. The official website is under construction and only contains a front page with no links to anything. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Oy! Copyvio, non notable, spamvertisment... --++Lar: t/c 04:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360 Wireless Networking Adapter[edit]

Blatent advertisment. Probably made by the people who produce it. Meteshjj 22:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sez in the first edit summary it's "straight from the official site". So it's probably copyvio as well. 69.145.123.171 |Hello!


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Apparent patent nonsense given the dearth of sources and the somewhat fractured prose. --++Lar: t/c 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan hummel[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. Google search returns three pages about some high school kid. Is there a speedy tag for this? Oh well - Delete anyway Spondoolicks 22:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Userify to User:Rob_Hain/Bio. --++Lar: t/c 04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hain[edit]

The author of the article (who, coincidentally, has the same name as the subject of the article) repeatedly removes speedy deletion tags without explanation. IMHO this looks a lot like a vanity page. I see a lot of unverifiable OR, and have strong suspicions that the article is written by the subject himself. Bachrach44 22:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sorry not notable enough. --manchesterstudent 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Burninate this exercise of egomania. Danny Lilithborne 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baleated, vanity. Sdedeo (tips) 23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the fact that the sole editor has the username "Rob Hain" pretty much spells out that this is pure vanity. fuzzy510 23:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. He has a user page and isn't using it. And also possibly truncate if it's too long, I dunno what the rules are for userpage lengths. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 14:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defence I am the author of the article. I take all your points and I was at pains to point out that this is an artist's cv which usually accompanies exhibitions and publicity. While it may seem like vanity publishing to some, this is the accepted method for artists to have written documentation of their work. It is not an ego trip in my opinion as I am attempting to only put down salient facts relating to my work. How else am I supposed to provide information for collectors and students who contact me for information? If you decide to delete the article I am not particularly bothered, as there are less stressful ways open to me. Thank you for your kind advice. Rob 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If you want to put your CV on the web, find a free web host.

--Bachrach44 18:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"How else am I supposed to provide information for collectors and students who contact me for information?" Erm, Mr Hain, you have a website at http://www.robhain.com/. That should be the starting place for your internet presence - not here. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 14:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Thanks Bachrach44. I didn't understand the way that Wikipedia works. I apologise for any inconvenience caused. I also note in the vanity guide page that short biogs can be included on the user page. It seems obvious now but I didn't appreciate that at the time. Best wishes Rob 19:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Notability not established. --++Lar: t/c 04:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Student Magazine[edit]

Delete-Article is about a nn magazine that has so far published 3 issues. It may well be famous someday, but right now, there are absolutely no google hits for "New Student Magazine" + "Any of the eds. mentioned in the article." Gershwinrb 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - maybe in the future?--manchesterstudent 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, no significant google or alexa hits when I searched. --++Lar: t/c 04:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hifiwigwam[edit]

Not a notable organisation, possible advertising. Low google. Depressingly short article. manchesterstudent 23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Cyde↔Weys 13:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College athletics[edit]

Contested PROD. Article doesn't give much information, and I don't see what could be added - anything that refers to athletics in the three major governing bodies (NCAA, NAIA and CIS) could go there, while anything else is either apparently not notable enough ("only followed by competitors and their close friends and families") or would be put into an article for that particular governing body. fuzzy510 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - an article overarching this well reported subject is certaily verifyable. Article may be poorly written and a stub but we should be WP:BOLD. I have a crusty old 1960's encyclopedia that mentions ( albiet briefly ) college athletics in this way - Peripitus (Talk) 00:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important topic and this article needs to be improved. Breaking things up obscures the broader picture. That's why Britannica is divided into a "Micropaedia" and a "Macropaedia". This article needs to explain the context, eg how did college athletics get started? What are the landmark developments since then? How do the three major governing bodies relate to one another? Why is it so much more prominent in USA than elsewhere? I will add an expand notice to the article and list these questions on its talk page. Landolitan 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The history and evolution of college athletics would be a valid subject, though the article clearly needs work to become that. - Motor (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Important topic with no suitable substitute page, including the suggested, but USA-specific NCAA page. — RJH (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Insufficient notability established. --++Lar: t/c 04:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Feeley[edit]

Delete. Otherwise undistinguished minor league player, and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amin Wright, which was my test AfD for Newark Express players. One user created many bios for the players of one minor league basketball team. No other comparable team has player bios as far as I was able to tell. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Also deleting the redirect pages. --++Lar: t/c 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra the band[edit]

Page seems to be about a non-notable band in Australia, from what I can tell from the article and their website, they fail WP:MUSIC. Article was original proposed for deletion. Delete Yanksox 23:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Andorra the band Wikipedia is not US centric. Because an entrant isnt immediately familar to an editor with their own musical knowledge and tastes doesnt preclude an entrant. Go through the weblinks to see the activity and relevance of the band in the Asia-Pacific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.41.79 (talk • contribs)

PS: Can the page author stop vandalising this AfD? AlexTiefling 14:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to say what is note-worthy and what is not?

You see we do a lot of work for social justice here. What difference does it make in your life if this little bit of cyber-space helps us promote our cause peace and progress for our humanity community? None of course, but it will help us. So, let it go by the by and we'll all be happy. No-one is contradicting anyone, vandalising or slandering, we're just detailing several years of political progress through music and our ongoing efforts to bring peace.

Joel

Joel we are in the business of building an encylopedia not "[helping to] promote our cause peace and progress for our humanity community". Promote your band somewhere else. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your comments are legitimate then so are mine. If you object to the editing and removal of comments by others then your equal action is also objectionable. Therefore, as legitimately as before...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.34.25 (talk • contribs)

the business of building an encylopedia

A 'encyclopedia' is a store-house of knowledge covering all topics, just as a dictionary is. That includes individuals, organisations, objects and interests. To the communities of Australia our work is of current and historical relevance, as it is world-wide as an example of art, freedom fighting and social justice. A true 'encyclopedia' is one that is compiled objectively, outside of the ethno-centric value systems of an elite (in this case the millioneth of a % who own a computer and have access to the internet.) If you regard your monitoring and contributions here to be of significance then it will encompass that and accomodate the value of our accomplishments. Look through the links for the events and actions we have facilitated and read the responses and impetus they have generated and then ask: 'What have I created and accomplished and, bearing that in mind, what power do I have to eradicate information about others who are inspired to create history?'

Comment: It never ceases to amaze me how people who want to use Wikipedia to promote their cause, their group or themselves suddenly show up and try to tell us how we should do things. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't surprise me in the slightest anymore. If the standards of Wikipedia say this article doesn't belong, then there are two choices: remove the article or attack the standards. Fan1967 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An IP left this comment at the top: Re: It never ceases to amaze me how people who want to use Wikipedia to promote their cause, their group or themselves suddenly show up and try to tell us how we should do things.

History, til this point has purely been a record endorsing the self-serving interests of the rich elite. One potential benefit of the internet (when it becomes accessible to the poor) will be the opportunity to break that standard. Instead of remaining an account which justifies the excesses of a few who reserve the tools that preserve information for themselves, the stranglehold may be broken. Let's hope that accounts, such as the music of social justice, illuminate a pathway to this.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Harro5 23:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Zhou[edit]

No references to the guy on google/web generally. Also question notability manchesterstudent 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OFSAA does not list individual athlete's achievements or biographies. by Jamesino

  • Delete nn high school athlete. Possible vanity article. The few results that show up on google ([29]) don't show him as very impressive. Fan1967 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Site created by user Jamesino. Vanity article highly likely. Certainly not notable or encylopedic. Consider speedy delete? User making changes to article after AFD nomination. --manchesterstudent 00:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its real--Jamesino 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check photofinishes at OFSAA Track and Field. --Jamesino 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please provide a specific link. I can't find any finish better than third place, and most are much worse. Even a win or two wouldn't make a "Midget Boys" racer notable, unless there is significant press coverage or attention. Fan1967
  • Delete References or not, it's a non-notable 15-year-old athlete. -- Kicking222 01:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable--Jamesino 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is Sébastien Lalonde and I am in charge of timing races at all major competitions held in Ottawa (at the Terry Fox Athelics Facility) including the NCSSAA Championship that James Zhou ran in. Our timing systems name input had a mixup between James Zhou from Colonel By and Spencer Bell from Canterbury so James Zhou did indeed win that race.-Sébastien Lalonde
  • Comment ^ No he's not
  • Speedy Delete tag added given the silly debate by the schoolboy above trying to list himself on Wiki. Vanity Article now clear. Most certainly not notable. --manchesterstudent 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very notable

just because the information is unavailable on Google, does not mean it is notable. Google is not the only place for information. News channels and local newspaper are sources as well. Just because it is not on Google, doesn't mean it is not notable.--Jamesino 23:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - blatant hoax and very little content. -- Kjkolb 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Barzeski[edit]

The link amused me but its not encyclopedic and I seriously question notability manchesterstudent 23:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 argument put forth by Drdisque is persuasive. The originating editor may want to create articles in userspace next time to give them time to grow and get fleshed out. --++Lar: t/c 04:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Murphey[edit]

I question the notability of this sports 'personality' manchesterstudent 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. DS 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ocean Blue[edit]

Non notable and not NPOV. Not a single CD of theirs is listed in Wikipedia, and whoever wrote it seems to have a bit too much information to be a third party. Meteshjj 23:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed as per nom. --manchesterstudent 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I strongly advocate it. The Ocean Blue had many sizable radio hits and, I bet, were I to check Billboard Modern Rock charts, I would be able to tell you that their singles charted high. "Cerulean" is a classic, and though I may be biased in this vote as I enjoy their music, they are extremely notable for having several well-played singles. GassyGuy 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I had to go ahead and break out a reference. All of these figures are peaks of their songs on Billboard's Modern Rock Tracks chart:
    • Comment Hey gang, sorry about all this, but I'm new to the rules of Wikipedia. I wrote the expanded text entry for 'The Ocean Blue' over the past few days. I am indeed a third party and just a die-hard fan and collector for the past 16 years. I've met the band once about a decade ago, but always keep up on their current goings on. It wasnt until after I wrote the Wikipedia entry this weekend, that I realized that I was writing in the form of a 'biography', when I SHOULD have been writing in the form of a true 'encyclopedic' entry. I will gladly clean up this entry to make sure that opinion, conjecture and bias are removed. I just wanted to try my best to write a solid, fact-filled submittal. Please feel free to help me correct any errors or Wikipedia rules that I may have broken. Everything I've written I can backup with hard-copy from my collection, but since much of the band's hey-day was 'pre-internet', its tough to cite facts with an online link. In addition, the bands website features an email, so I'm sure the group can clear up and confirm any questions of accuracy. Thanks folks, MAPAZ. MAPAZ 01:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. NPOV is a basis for a maintenance tag, not deletion. Multiple studio albums listed in article (plus singles etc. listed) is prima facie indicia of notability and should be an invitation for investigation before nominating for Afd. A look at allmusic substantiates notability, as does amazon [30]. --Fuhghettaboutit 01:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:MUSIC. Three albums released on Sire Records and one on Mercury records meets our album requirements. Modern rock hits meet the chart requirements. Allmusic.com has an article on them see [31] I added some sections as it is a long article without a break. Capitalistroadster 01:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per information that's just been brought to our attention. Also, let's please not consider something not having an article on Wikipedia as an indication of not being relevant, since it's far from a complete database. fuzzy510 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster and GassyGuy. ---Charles 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely meets WP:MUSIC and a biased article/content dispute isn't grounds for deletion. - Motor (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. -- Kukini 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 01:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last step before failure[edit]

notability. probably vanity article manchesterstudent 00:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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