< February 28 March 2 >

Purge server cache

March 1[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 no consensus. Recommend just merge & redirect to List of shock sites as a compromise. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption junction[edit]

Non-notable website. Rmhermen 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mallin[edit]

Vanity, reads like a resume. Unsure as to whether the person is notable enough for an article. Fightindaman 00:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DON"T DELETE - THere are six pages of Google entries on Dan. He is doing many things to give back to the state of Minnesota. He and is partner have started a business plan competition called the Minnesota Cup. Last year was the first year. It has a $1 million endowment, sponsorship from The State of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota and Wells Fargo. There where over 600 entires from 48 counties in the state. Year two will be announced in March. All sponsors are back and there will be even more. They are extending the utility to help more companies that are not on the "Venture" track but more lifestyle or "SBA" track. Theres is a civic group called the Itasca Project. http://www.theitascaproject.com/ Dan has been asked to lead the Small Business efforts and will be rolling out a major public service initiative addressing those needs in Q3-06. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-09%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=%22dan+mallin%22+minneapolis I just did not know what I was doing from a Wikipedia entry. I have edited it down and with your help will make it an acceptable entry. Help me but don't delete. US285188


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mashton[edit]

The page is nonsense. It started as an initial nonsense sentence (Mashton sounds like mash tun), and was added to with somewhat incorrect information about brewing. BrendanH 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Liberal Democrats[edit]

Listed as prod, for which I was tossed something pretty close to violating NPA. However this article has been up for a while and not even the good folks on the busy English/Korean board have heard of them. No assertion of notability, no evidence of existence... Nothing but WP + mirrors on google. Hoax / fantasy. NorKorCruft! Delete Deiz 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbustoo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internetdiary[edit]

This page appears to be an advertising page for the commercial link at the bottom, disguised as an attempt to describe a purportedly general term. A Google search doesn't readily turn up any use of the word "internetdiary" that doesn't relate to the linked company. Also problematic are the other edits made by Kernowman and 81.99.43.37 (evidently the same person) to other pages to add linkspam and promote "internetdiary" as a generally-used synonym for "online diary" or "blog"; I can't find a single edit made by a different person that uses this word. (If you agree that this page should be deleted, we should also revert these edits.) –Sommers (Talk) 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Bad-faith nomination. android79 01:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan_Ellison[edit]

Fails notability criteria; just another partisan godless hack. Sam Tindell 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borden Grammar[edit]

Delete. Article in it current form is a childish hoax. However, I am nominating for AFD rather than ((prod))ding because I feel there shouldn't be an article on the school at all. That decision requires consensus. Superm401 - Talk 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was WP:CSD A7 mikka (t) 03:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Binnali[edit]

Vanity. Non-notable Joelito 01:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep and nomination withdrawn. Ifnord 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Montes Reina[edit]

This appears to be copyvio, straight from the book listed on the page. Other than that, I can't establish any sort of context, or figure out who/what the article is referencing. I'm not even sure that this person exists. The picture on the page is copyvio and slated to be deleted. Francisco Montes Reina was orignally ((prod)) but was removed by author, so now it's going to AfD where it can run and be free and play in the fields with other questionable articles. Isopropyl 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per WP:SNOW. howcheng {chat} 22:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer List of Videogames[edit]

Non-notable per WP:WEB Garglebutt / (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here's a citation of KLOV from Newsweek, calling it "the IMDb for players" [2] Bobak 02:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puhlease! Don't try to guess my motives just because you disagree with me. At the very least the article needs to be expanded if the web site is indeed notable. I see Wikipedia becoming a collection point for POV web site reviews. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope your motives are really honorable Gargebutt, but if you scheduled VGM and KLOV for deletion, why not mobygames? Does the look of the site inflict on your judgement about the site being notable? Because Mobygames looks more professional yes, but it's the worst one out of these 3. ReyVGM 12:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need to guess your motives, Garglebutt, your edit history on this issue is all the proof any third party would need to see that you're unable to separate your personal issues with a person from your irresponsible lack of knowledge on the topics you've recently nominated for deletion. But don't just take my word for it, see below. Bobak 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Revo 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result of the debate was lack of consensus, defaults to keep. Ifnord 18:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clown conservatory[edit]

Delete. Vanity advertisement for non-notable institution. 400 Google results.[4] -- Krash (Talk) 02:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Z W T fails completely and is fully exposed by editing of this text that includes reverting text. 888999888 lkd2186

Assemblage_point

Delete This has the appearance of an advertisment. The names seem too close to be coincidental, and the site link and poon link seem likely to be closely related to the author's benefit. The coloured light stuff is quackery, but that of itself is not suggested to be the reason for deletion. Midgley 02:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation[edit]

Very close to an attack page, and if the references the article uses stand for something, it is very likely unverifiable. Delete Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Best Actress winners by age at win[edit]

Listcruft, of trivial use. Might be merge-able with List of Best Actress winners or somesuch. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was EDIT, or no consensus if you prefer. -Splashtalk 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novostroika[edit]

del. An article obviously written by a Westerner who doesn't know Russian language (probably based on a newspaper article written by a similar ignorant). In Russian language "novostroika" simply means "new construction"/"new construction site", without any alleged relation to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and hence the term bears no specifically "Russian" flavor. mikka (t) 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho Santa Fe Homes[edit]

This article appears to be just an ad for a real estate agent. The article isn't linked to anything and is listed as a dead end page. Elkman - (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 after rename. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian raid on Gotland[edit]

Article was speedied out of process as a copyvio. I don't see the original online. Restoring and listing at AFD. - EurekaLott 03:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Chamouille[edit]

New Caledonian swimmer. I don't think his PBs are good enough to be notable. He is currently 30 yrs old, so he could theoretically be competitive if he was good enough. Here are his PBs

The rankings are 50m Long course from www.swimnews.com . They list 25 swimmers on each ranking page, and if ten people have the same time, the next guy is 2nd, even though 10 guys are faster than him, so the ranking isn't as good as it might numerically seem.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Shattock[edit]

Delete Not notable biography. Dose not fit under WP:BIO, the closest is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Royal Blue 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southern slave driver[edit]

Delete. This article has no real content, and the subject matter is unclear. It appears to have been copied from another source, but none are cited. akendall(talk) 04:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 since it's been comprehensively rewritten during the AfD.[6]. There seems only to have been one revisitation by the earlier editors so deleting this would only result in a relisting at DRV. -Splashtalk 22:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Calontir[edit]

This is a "kingdom" in the Society for Creative Anachronism. I notice none of the other "kingdoms" have their own wiki pages, and SCA has its own Wiki. I can't find a specific part of WP:Notability that this violates but I think it does in spirit; also WP:V. Thatcher131 05:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been completely rewritten and I would request that the closing admin take that into account. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 07:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected regarding the Outlands kingdom pages. I also agree that the sub-topics do not warrant individual articles; most of them were prodded by another editor. Thatcher131 06:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to say that you were being remiss, only that the article has little content. Crypticfirefly 06:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I didn't take offense. Thatcher131 06:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nothing to merge). Does not warrant an article of its own. Average Earthman 06:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 13:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you compare your project with the page for Kingdom of the Outlands. The Outlands page basically says, we're a club, here's a bit of our history, here are links to our activities and websites. Wikipedia is a not a free web host and it is not a substitute for your own web site. Also, the indivdual articles on awards and other internal kingdom business really do fall below Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and are written in a very silly way, as if they are things in the real world. I suggest you rework the main article in your user space WP:USER and then recreate it here when it's done. To keep it from being speedily deleted, note on the new article's talk page that it is not a recreation of a deleted article but a substantial rewrite. Thanks for contributing. It does take a couple of tries to get the hang of it. Don't give up. Thatcher131 14:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you and Guido can collaborate on a rewrite. That info is very much along the lines of a real encyclopedia entry but was not included in the original entry, nor based on the outline would it be. Nearly all of the Kingdom info (traditions, awards, customs, etc) should be on its own web site, which it already has. The Wikipedia entry should say when you were founded, what area, how many local chapters, describe the most notable events (like the Lillies war) and then direct users to other sites for detailed information. See the Kingdom of the Outlands for what I think is a better example.Thatcher131 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been partially rewritten. It is much more Wikippropriate now, and hopefully comprehensible to non-SCAdians. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. This makes is to a reasonable consensus to delete; AGF says that the nom is the subject and that can help the consensus along, although not make the decision for us (usually). -Splashtalk 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Serkan Apaydin[edit]

I do not want to be listed in wikipedia and am not a contributor to the existing contents. Someone outside my knowledge has created an article about me. Mapaydin 05:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Via Paxton[edit]

This was proposed for deletion, but I have brought it here. Not so much that I want it to be kept, but because I'm not sure that deletion would be uncontroversial, since we have many similar articles. She has appeared 14 times in Score magazine and Voluptuous magazine and once in Mamazon. She has also appeared on the websites of Score and Voluptuous. She has had parts in at least two pornographic movies and has had one movie that is just about her, with her name in the title. Usually only performers with a fair amount of notability and significant name recognition with fans have such movies, at least when the movie is produced by a major studio. I give the article a weak keep. -- Kjkolb 05:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was withdrawn (see history) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mehmet Serkan Apaydin[edit]

Delete Mapaydin 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even necessary? If an article is deleted, redirects are also deleted as per WP:CSD R1. Royboycrashfan 05:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how a nomination is withdrawn. ;) Royboycrashfan 06:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The betterthanbest entmap2[edit]

Article about a single map of a computer game. Wikipedia is not your webserver for gaming content or an index for every fanmade gaming map out there. PROD tags removed without comment by author twice, so I consider AfD notification to have taken place. Sandstein 05:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrestling Forum[edit]

Non-notable, vanity, self-promotion, and doesn't even provide any information on the subject. Peter Grey 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Ntoskrnl; counting the few explicit votes on all others, no consensus to delete. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ntoskrnl[edit]

Non-notable Windows system file. Wikipedia isn't a technical how-to or an indiscriminate collection of information; see WP:NOT. Sandstein 05:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following pages for deletion for the same reason. The original author removed the PROD tag without comment on most of them.
Sandstein 05:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's "/sbin/init", not "/etc/init". — A.M. 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Shows just how important the init article is! Peter Grey 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In principle, I concur with kingboyk. However, we shouldn't keep one non-notable article because other non-notable articles have also been retained; otherwise we would have to Keep all AfD nominations or Delete all the fancruft related to Pokémon et al. Each article should be judged on its own merit. At any rate, you are free to also nominate /etc/init etc. for AfD. Sandstein 14:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm well aware your first argument (it's a sound one) and of course I'm aware that I can nominate init for deletion :). What I'm really saying is: take a step back. Imagine this is the article about the Linux equivalent. Would it be deleted? I don't wish to nominate init*, which makes it hard for me to support the deletion of Ntoskrnl. *init could use more encyclopedic tone and I will tag it as such. --kingboyk 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: The article, in its current form, just describes the name of the file, not anything technical about what it does, so having a separate article is not really serving any purpose, at least not yet. The difference is that Unix administrators are expected to know what /etc/init does, Windows administrators do not deal with ntoskrnl.exe. Peter Grey 15:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True enough. Let's nominate init too, as a janitorial action to widen the debate. "Wikipedia isn't a technical how-to" may apply there also. --kingboyk 15:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramfire[edit]

The article itself claims that it's a neologism; see WP:NEO. Sandstein 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jones-Nerzic[edit]

Delete, being head of humanities is probably not enough importance to require an article WU03 06:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entmod[edit]

Some guy's modification to Half-life. Also see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The betterthanbest entmap2. Delete as non-notable fancruft. JIP | Talk 06:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entmap[edit]

A term for Half-life maps requiring Entmod (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entmod). Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The betterthanbest entmap2. Delete as fancruft. JIP | Talk 06:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 No consensus. On a strict vote-count, I see 11 deletes and 5 non-deletes. I also see two invalid votes for merge (I call them invalid because they said "Delete all and merge". I simply counted them as "Delete all"). As such, this is right on the keep/delete borderline. I would highly recommend either merging them into one article or holding another AfD and letting everyone know that you can't delete and merge. In any case, it doesn't require an AfD to merge articles. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus, default to redirect to Digimon X-Evolution. I changed my mind after going through the first dozen of these articles and truly seeing no content beyond what's printed on those little cards. I'm applying my admin's discretion and making the "merge" votes into "redirect" because there's nothing to merge. That way, the content (what little there is) is still in the article history. I'm highly tempted to just delete the lot, but the delete consensus isn't quite high enough for that. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agumon X and a bunch of others[edit]

Delete. we don't need a whole other page just because "X" is on the end of the name. if anyone wants, just make a list of Digimon who are x-antibody types in the Digimon X-Evolution article. Even the 'mon that were major characters in the movie don't seem notable enough to have their own article. so far I'll only list the "x-mon" articles with no additional info on it so nothing merge-able is lost. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as mentioned above (please note, only "x-mon" articles that have no additional information are being considered right now. meaning, if the article has additional notes I did not include it, so those notes could be saved / merged or whatever.) -- Ned Scott 07:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leomon X, WereGarurumon X, WarGrowlmon X, UlforceVeedramon X, Vademon X, Tylomon X, Thundermon X, Syakomon X, Starmon X, SkullMammothmon X, Seadramon X, Scorpiomon X, Salamon X, Rhinomon X, Pteramon X, PrinceMamemon X, Plesiomon X, Otamamon X, Okuwamon X, Nefertimon X, Monochromon X, MetalTyrannomon X, MetalSeadramon X, MetalMamemon X, MetalGreymon X, Megidramon X, MegaSeadramon X, Kuwagamon X, Kokuwamon X, IceLeomon X, HerculesKabuterimon X, Hagurumon X, Guilmon X, Growlmon X, Greymon X, Gotsumon X, Gomamon X, Goldramon X, War Greymon X, Gesomon X, Gazimon X, Gatomon X, Garurumon X, Garudamon X, Gabumon X, Ebemon X, Dobermon X, Crabmon X, Chaosdramon X, Cerberumon X, BlackWarGreymon X, Betamon X, Beelzemon X, Mantaraymon X, Mammothmon X, Mamemon X, Allomon X, Rosemon X, Togemon X, Palmon X, Lillymon X

I removed UlforceVeedramon X and Kokuwamon X from this bundle for the sake of getting what we can deleted with less resistance. probably still should be deleted, but that will be a different discussion at this point. -- Ned Scott 11:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that does not earn them their own article pages. compare a number of these articles with their non x versions, and you'll see almost identical articles. how on earth is that acceptable by any standard for wikipedia? again, note that I did not include any of the x articles with additional information in this list. -- Ned Scott 10:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand what there is to merge. I specifically choose articles with no additional content, thus nothing to merge. the only thing to "merge" is the fact that the digimon has an x-version, which really isn't a merge at all. Not only that, but I don't think there were x versions for most of these digimon in the movie, making most of the articles speculation towards an x-version. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. Delete or redirect. --Fang Aili 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repunit (factors)[edit]

It's a list of factorizations of numbers. A few people, somewhere, do apparently care about these, but even so this should at best be moved to WikiSource. —Blotwell 09:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Maybe BJAODN material...Maybe not. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floom[edit]

Blatant Neologism ~ Booyabazooka 09:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actors from both Babylon 5 and Star Trek[edit]

Extreme listcruft. Even for a hardcore Babylon 5 fan like me, I can see no rhyme or reason for this article's existance. If this serves some sort of purpose, then why not Actors from both Seinfeld and Friends or Actors from both Bonanza and The Simpsons. Gibberish. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. pschemp | talk 20:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Road[edit]

Page seems well meaning but the road appears to lack enencyclopedic merit. Claims of notability have been promised, but not (yet) delivered. I'm prepared to withdraw this, but not without some reasonable evidence of notability. Sorry, Ben Aveling 09:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have an article on Brighton Road because it is one of the longest roads in London. Period. That is standard practice for road articles, which many voters here, who work on road articles, fully understand. Following your logic, we should delete Broadway (New York City) because we have an article on U.S. Route 9. Or maybe it's the reverse. Furthermore, since you seem to be arguing for a merge, and have even gone so far as to place a merge tag on the article, why vote delete? That just seems so incredibly inconsistent. Roads have a curious habit of changing names or becoming known under multiple names. See U.S. Route 41 and Tamiami Trail. In answer to your question, yes we must have road articles. Why? Because we are trying to provide people with the information they need. Wikipedia is not an address book- it's an encyclopedia. On a side note, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using derogatory slang to slam editors that are merely trying to expand the contents at wikipedia. -- JJay 19:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again, I see AfD is dominated by faulty logic. You are not comparing like for like. A UK equivalent of your first comparison is A40 and Oxford Street, and your second the naming of the M25 as "London Orbital Motorway". Because Brighton Road is on a par with neither Oxford Street nor the M25, your argument fails. I object to your branding of this as "trying to expand the contents at wikipedia" (sic), when perhaps instead of junk like the names of individual streets in London (in case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia is not the London A-Z, nor is it a guide to genealogy or local history), perhaps you might want to try some activities which would actually contribute something worthwhile, welcome, and (more importantly) necessary. Take a look at ((opentask)) or WP:MEA. 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I'd rather work on road articles. But take a look at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. -- JJay 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • When did wikipedia stop being a guide to local history? Kappa 12:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Local history can be encylopedic, but not all such is. Bascially, it needs to be significant somehow - a particularly notable piece of local history, that has more than local interest. We keep being told that this road is notable, but really, I think we need more details of that so that we can understand why the road is more significant than so many other roads. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see that wikipedia can pretend to be a comprehensive encylopedia and not tell me about the history of the areas it covers. Kappa 13:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. About 60% delete, 63% counting the nominator. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University Hall (Bristol)[edit]

Dormcruft. Built in 1972; no assertion of anything extraordinary. Melchoir 10:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wills Hall is borderline in my mind; Clifton Hill House is notable for its history. Obviously there is a continuum of notability for residence halls, just like any other category. This Hall is at the bottom.
  • Merging to one article is an excellent idea.
  • Wikipedia is not a consumer guide. And you know what, often an article needs to be nominated as quickly as possible. Otherwise we waste the time of everyone who edits it without suspecting the inevitability of its fate. Melchoir 22:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say "Wikipedia is not a consumer guide"? However, I also do not think that is what I was suggesting. I was not suggesting anything about value for money. I was suggesting that information is usefull and that is why people turn to encyclopedias. --Bduke 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that argument is that all information is useful to somebody. It doesn't say "Wikipedia is not a consumer guide" anywhere, but I think it's a reasonable reflection of our values. We don't have an article on every nursing home for the sole purpose of helping people decide where to put their parents. We also don't have an article on every university residence for the sole purpose of helping people decide where to put their kids. Melchoir 22:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John McGuirk[edit]

Vanity article? Smitz 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Karate Kid, Part III. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynatox Industries[edit]

Company appears not to exist. Terry Silver appears not exist. The article makes no sense mcwiggin 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 sources presented do not appear to satisfy our guidelines, and several of the "keep" recomendations that are based upon notability are thus unverified. At least two "keep" recomendations are given with the caveat that notability appears to arise from vanity press alone. Given this, the delete outcome is a matter of sources. This is without prejudice to a new, rewritten article that has reputable third party sources that indicates notability beyond what is indicated here. - brenneman{T}{L} 00:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Maxwell[edit]

Vanity article, has no purpose to be a valid resource on people wanting to know about the persons life. Purpose for being there is to support the link, which is original internet research, as claimed by its author on the talk page. Ansell 21:26, 1 March 2006 Please note that on 06:31, February 28, 2006 Mushroom deleted "A. Graham Maxwell" (copyvio), which is about the same person. MyNameIsNotBob 13:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Explain. Take a look at this page for Billy Graham: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham. There are sections for achievements, quotes and controversy. Why can't Graham Maxwell have the same? Dr. Graham Maxwell is a more notable Adventist figure than Desmond Ford, who is listed in Wikipedia.
There is no chance that Graham Maxwell is a more notable figure than Desmond Ford. You are wrong to class him in the same level of notability. Ansell 06:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Dr. Graham Maxwell should be honored for his contributions to Gnosticism, pantheism, moral influence theory and New Age theology. -Perspicacious 22:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is so then why are you so anti all of these theories and wanting to put your POV on all of your contributions relating to this person. Ansell 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rynne, Maxwell's book, "Can God Be Trusted?" was originally published by Southern Publishing Association, Nashville, Tennessee, which is a publishing house owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. --Perspicacious 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The forum Rynne quoted has been conclusively found to be vanity by Perspicacious as he is Eugene Shubert, the overwhelming major contributor (and possibly website owner) to the forums. Ansell 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second: If someone is interested in expanding the article by writing on the upbringing of A. Graham Maxwell and his early life, they are very welcome to do so. Realize, of course, that many people are only remembered for their life's work and goals, not lesser experiences. Joseph Goebbels is known best for being Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels
At least for me, I am more interested in those details about Goebbels. And while some persons don't want to see evidence documenting the "final solution," I don't mind someone making a Wikipedia article out of it.
According to everything I know, the only encyclopedic significance of Graham Maxwell is the schism he has created in the Seventh-day Adventist church:
"A faction in the church rejects the historic Christian belief that Christ died vicariously for our sins and accepts, instead, the controversial theology of A. Graham Maxwell." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventists
This is undeniable. --Perspicacious 03:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perspicacious, most of your arguments make little to no sense. The quote from the Seventh-day Adventist page is one that you put there, and thus cannot be used to justify your case. -Fermion 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NotBob, before my response was edited by someone else, I had many bulleted statements. My separate bulleted remark, "This is undeniable" applied to the entirety of my response and I meant by it that every detail of my response was factual and true. --Perspicacious 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Each bullet point represents a vote. You can only have one vote, putting more than that means we have to disregard your contribution to the voting process as you have not followed the standard method. Ansell 22:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Second Century Gnosticism
2. Medieval Moral Influence Theory
3. The New Age Interpretation of the Cross
I expect to have time to complete this task this weekend. Hopefully, I can finish it before the censors decide to delete the entire page. --Perspicacious 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that wikipedia is not a democracy. It also is not censored. Please do not confuse this process with censorship. Ansell 23:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that? --Perspicacious 23:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the same way as he does simply because I can't find any non-Eugene Shubert/aka. User:Perspicacious references to him that actually specifically say he contributed something major to any part of adventism. Combined with the fact that you can't provide these, obviously, widespread issues to us in terms that we accept as encyclopedic influence and significance, means that someone else who is not deep into adventism will know, or ever care, about these issues. Wikipedia needs to be interesting to people in 100 years time as well. Ansell 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking. See this category: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." Graham Maxwell's book, "Can God Be Trusted?" was acclaimed as the denominational book of the year. http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/10.html The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a big denomination. -Perspicacious 23:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to assume the good faith of other editors. I doubt Woldo was kidding around when he made this comment. I admit believe that the article doesn't exactly prove on its own that it meets WP:BIO MyNameIsNotBob 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per MyNameIsNotBob, the main article does not in itself prove that it meets WP:BIO Woldo 08:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Additional Sources Referencing Graham Maxwell as a Noteworthy Schismatic in the Seventh-day Adventist Church[edit]

1. Desmond and Gillian Ford, (1982) The Adventist Crisis of Spiritual Identity pp. 124, 141, 142.

[Chapter 9 in this reference is titled Enquiry's Progress. Here, Gillian Ford tells a story of an Adventist journey written in the style of the classic book Pilgrim's Progress. The story begins as follows]:

An earnest seeker for truth, Enquiry was his name, was wandering through a certain country, looking for sign-posts along the way. In the midst of a desert, he saw afar off a man seated on a rock with his head in his hands. "Maybe this man can direct me to some more fertile place," thought he to himself and hastened towards him.

"Good-day friend. My name's Enquiry, and I am seeking for the garment which will protect me in the coming earthquake. Can you help me?"

The man seated on the rock, Confused was his name, sighed deeply and wrung his hands.

"I wish I could, sir, but I need help myself. For I too have heard that there's an earthquake coming. They say that it's already rumbling, and folks round here are afraid that the whole town will be destroyed."

[Enquiry and Confused gather up their belongings and set off to travel along the highway. Here's the part I like. They arrive inevitably at Maxwell's house].

As they trudged south, they came to a place called Pretty Hill, and seeing a light, thought to ask for rest that night. They approached timidly, fearing that they might be turned away, but were warmly greeted from afar off by two figures on the porch who greeted them most cordially, and welcomed them like brothers.

Tender-heart: "Our names are Love-alone and Tender-heart. There are no words used in this house such as blood, or wrath, or penalty, or punish, or propitiate. We teach that the architect can be trusted."

Enquiry and Confused found the hosts most congenial, the stay most comfortable, the beds soft and the food easy to digest. And as they talked together, Confused especially felt at ease, for he had often been told that the architect was a stern judge, ready to throw a ton of bricks at all who displease him. Thus he had grown up afraid of him. But Enquiry grew very quiet and thoughtful, and caused Confused to ask if all was well.

Enquiry: "It seems to me that I could not really trust a God who took evil lightly and did not punish those who murdered, stole and dealt unjustly. The blueprint speaks with those words of which you do not approve."

Love-alone: "But those words are mere figures of speech. For though the blueprint speaks of judgment—such judgment men bring on themselves. They reap what they sow. The architect himself does not act out in judgment, because he is love and cannot act against himself. As for wrath—it is merely that the architect gives up on men, when after much patient coaxing, he cannot win them. And blood and penalty! Did the son of the architect have to die to 'pay for our sins'? We say not. It was to show that he loved us so much that he would die to prove it.

2. http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/Shea.htm

3. Weber, Martin. (1994) Who's Got the Truth, Making sense out of five different Adventist gospels, pp. 15-34.

Here are some pertinent quotes:

"Obviously, all of these spiritual leaders have much to contribute in terms of gospel truth, or they wouldn't have their large followings of thoughtful Seventh-day Adventists." p. 5.

"Reading Servants or Friends makes obvious why Graham Maxwell is so popular with thousands of thoughtful Adventists." p. 15.

"I wish I could accommodate Dr. Maxwell's desire to be left out of this book, but because his view are cherished by thousands of Adventists, I would be remiss not to consider them worthy of inclusion in this analysis. And so I have proceeded without Dr. Maxwell's participation."

"He feels so strongly that I should not include him in these pages that he contacted the denominational publishing house with which I was arranging to print this book. He asked that they not publish it if it includes my chapter about him. Out of respect for his wishes, the book editors there complied with his request. Consequently, I am publishing this book personally with the Home Study International Press."

"To summarize: The name Graham Maxwell is well-known and beloved by Adventist around the world; he is too significant a thought leader to ignore." p. 33.

4. David P. McMahon wrote in his book, Ellet Joseph Waggoner: The Myth and the Man, in reference to Christ's atonement and the Division of Religion at Loma Linda University, and I quote: "In this department are those who repudiate the historic Christian doctrine of the substitutionary atonement in order to embrace 'the moral influence theory.' In fact, the moral influence theory has widely permeated West-Coast American Adventism. It has such a stranglehold on the church's principal financial base that the leaders of the church appear paralyzed and frightened to touch it." p. last.

5. http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm#Maxwell

6. http://www.sdadefend.com/BattleOverTruth.htm:

GOD WILL NOT KILL THE WICKED—The present author’s research study, The Terrible Storm, is the most complete collection of Bible-Spirit of Prophecy material on this subject. Revelation 14:9-10 predicts a terrible storm of God’s wrath is soon to fall upon the incorrigibly wicked. But Satan wants the Third Angel’s Message repudiated in the minds of men. In place of it, he substitutes a different message: “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you go to heaven anyway.”

In spite of a multitude of clear statements in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, for over two decades Mike Clute taught the false doctrine that God never has, and never will, execute capital punishment on the wicked. In recent years Mike went into universalism, the teaching that none of the wicked will ever die. That evil teaching is solidly denounced in Great Controversy, 537-539.

This error, which Paul Heubach used to teach in the 1950s and 1960s at La Sierra and Walla Walla (he was the one who taught it to Mike), is being taught by Graham Maxwell of Loma Linda University (Graham Maxwell, Servants or Friends? Another Look at God, 1992). Maxwell says he has a “matured” view of God, which helps him see that the “many references in the Bible to God’s destruction of the wicked” must be understood as God’s “just using a figure of speech.” --Perspicacious 05:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. — Rebelguys2 talk 16:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rife_plasma_lamp_devices[edit]

unverifiable rubbish probably an advert for the devices and if it belongs anywhere at all would be as a sidebar to Royal Raymond Rife and his quack Rife Ray and incredible microscope Delete unencyclopaedic rubbishMidgley 11:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal Rife. Hynca-Hooley 13:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian_rogers[edit]

Delete this disambig page obscures the other disambig page Ian_Rogers (capital R) Rogersidrkw 11:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Basu[edit]

Article written by the subject's son, as mentioned by the writer himself in the article (compare with the user page). Delete as vanity. Turyabasu 12:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-cannibalism[edit]

There is much discussion on the talk page about whether the topic is real or not. The article is mostly unverified, other than a link to another Wikipedia article. I'm bringing it here so other editors can help evaluate this topic. Abstain currently. Joyous | Talk 12:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was pwn3d (delete). Mailer Diablo 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quarryists[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a webpage for internet game clans. feydey 12:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 12:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Unconditionals[edit]

Delete - vanity, self-publicity, not of general interest Minirof 12:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H.O.B.E.F[edit]

joke/hoax JPD (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for stuff made up in school one day. Hynca-Hooley 12:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MODIFY - Hi, i am the creator of this article and have noticed a significant oversight made when writing. H.O.B.E.F is a 'Tongue in Cheek' rating and collection of articles that appears in many University newspapers and Orientation week publications. I do agree that this information is required to maintain relevance. Regards

Delete - a joke passed around a few University newspapers is still not encyclopediaworthy, whether it points out it's a joke or not. -- Aim Here 13:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WONDERFUL P.I.s[edit]

Does not appear to pass guidelines for inclusion. Neither Author nor first novel listed in article appear on amazon. brenneman{T}{L} 12:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Can't find any evidence of an author named Anthony Rupert or any of the books on Google. TimBentley 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Rainbow (and the redirect RADIO RAINBOW)[edit]

This page was created by User:PERSBUREAU AZP, whose sole contributions have been to litter every pirate radio article s/he can find with references to "Radio Rainbow". One moment s/he is claiming that the Radio London organisation are behind the 'venture' [15] (highly improbable, by the way), another moment that it is Ronan O'Rahilly and Radio Caroline [16], [17], [18]. There's no apparent notability for this station, a Google search is mostly fruitless. It seems that it only broadcasts at weekends, if at all, and - strangely for an 'offshore station' there's no photo of their vessel to be found (by me at least). Delete both. kingboyk 13:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. I'm willing to let this article stand for now because Radio Rainbow may possibly have some notability. Unfortunately the current article makes alot of unsubstantiated claims (i.e. Secret Service jamming; offshore broadcasting). If these claims are not sourced soon they should be removed. Also author should be warned about spamming links to Radio Rainbow around to other Pirate radio articles without sourcing his or her wild claims.Abstain pending further investigation (see below).--Isotope23 18:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm extremely surprised to see you voting Keep after just debunking the article on Talk:Radio Rainbow, but there we go :) He has been warned, but I just spotted that the talk page was edited by the same name in lower case (User:Persbureau azp). --kingboyk 18:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon some further investigation, I withdraw that keep for now. There are quite a few uses of this name out there in the world. There is an Afropop station, a defunct streaming clubmix website, A yogi webcast, and a plethora of gay pride stations, all using the name. Furthermore, a quick check finds evidence of other pirate & clandestine sites using the same name: [19], [20]. These are apparently talking about 2 stations that are different from the one referenced in this article, one run by an Irish and one dedicated to Ethiopian issues transmitting from Germany. Still, some of the info from the article seems to be taken from these sites. The only other evidence is the blogspot site, but that isn't really evidence at all. I say all sorts of crazy stuff on my blog; that doesn't make it true. All of this is nudging me away from a Keep. Even if this station is demonstrated to be true, how is it any more notable than the dozen other stations/websites using the name?--Isotope23 18:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My findings were similar, but a few days or weeks ago (I've been dealing with this nonsense on the Caroline article for some time). This seems to be quite specifically about an offshore station, and I still keep wondering "where is the bloody ship?!". Radio Caroline's Ross Revenge had a 300ft antenna mast, it was quite hard to miss :) --kingboyk 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Would be notible if some evidence could be found to back up its claims, aside from its own sources. --InShaneee 23:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no WP:V evidence of claims.--Isotope23 21:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was gamma sterilised (delete). Mailer Diablo 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamma Society[edit]

Was tagged for Speedy, then Prod'd, which was removed, so here it is. A secret society about which little is known and nothing can be verified shouldn't have an article. Smells like a hoax. —Wrathchild (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sh. . . don't tell anyone. Just delete it secretly. Unverifiable and, as noted, could be a hoax. Logophile 13:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with Gamma Rays!...er, fire.--み使い Mitsukai 14:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and per Logophile do it quietly. As stated in the article: "TGS is said to have only sleeping members..." No need to wake them up.--Isotope23 14:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course, this just proves how powerful they really are. Thatcher131 14:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's so secret that even Google can't find it. Accurizer 15:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. feydey 17:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. If their members are all asleep, at least they won't come in and sock the discussion. --Kinu t/c 18:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you guys checked the sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.17.229.129 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment The book exists (ISBN 0760762767) but the on-line information does not mention this society. The web site is in Swedish. Accurizer 00:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Swedish website is an encyclopedia which doesn't even appear to have an article on the topic: I keep coming up with Vasco da Gama and "Chamber Orchestra." No sale. Delete with prejudice. --KJPurscell 07:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkism Studios[edit]

nn company, likely a hoax. Article originally a ((prod)), then bumped to ((db)) speedy, then back to ((prod)). Additional information from original prod follows:

Non-notable "company". From what I can gather this is simply a few teenage kids who have teamed up and made a hanfull of mini games in Game Maker and set up a website at a free host to promote them (so not an actual company at all). As far as I can tell this fall hopelesly short of Wikipedia notability critereas.

Highly recommend speedy. み使い Mitsukai 13:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In no way notable. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. joshbuddytalk 15:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 02:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely useless. Not a hoax, because the "company" seems real, though it seems more like an informal high school club. Still, the article is useless and plagarizes the about page. Recommend speedy deletion. --Safdiugbawkjfgvc 05:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. WU03 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Samir ∙ TC 02:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED as recreation of previously deleted material. Postdlf 14:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rafitropolis[edit]

This page was previously speedy userfied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafitropolis. I don't see any way to speedy delete it as a repost, so it has to come back here. Needless to say, it's hopelessly unencyclopaedic. Stifle 14:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. How the hell did this survive the first time? o_O--み使い Mitsukai 14:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm speedy deleting it. The vast bulk of the AFD votes were to delete outright, so the preservation of the content in the user page was a mere courtesy. Regardless, to "userfy" means to delete from article space, hence the deletion of the redirect after the move. Postdlf 14:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily redirected, no need for further Afd on this. Friday (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Marren[edit]

CJ now wrestles under the name JC Williams. I have created an article on JC Williams, so there is no need of having an article on CJ marren anymore Jc williams 14:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If anything, the above AFD article should be redirected to the new one. The fact is, however, that the new one not only does not establish notability, it reads strongly like NPOV vanity and probably should be speedied unless notability can be proven.--み使い Mitsukai 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly redirected to JC Williams. This AFD can be closed now.--み使い Mitsukai 15:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie[edit]

Memorial article about a 6 month old dog. An earlier speedy as a non-notable bio has been contested, so it has been brought here. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a memorial. In addition the article has issues with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources as the only available source is a personal website. --Allen3 talk 14:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this article i assume i shant be taken objectively, however- Gracie was not just a dog. She was a cultural symbol and a tool for parvo awareness. I believe the speedy deletion as a bio did not take these facts into consideration. I shall attempt to address the other issues, but that is the reason for my reposting. User: Coinman

  • Comment. If this is the mascot for Parvovirus why don't they link together in anyway? joshbuddytalk 15:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I guess I get concerned when a Google search for ""caught being cute" gracie", which should bring up results for the "infamous" posters or at least something about the campaign, yields only 2 results, both the user's only source. Heck, a search for "gracie parvo" brings up more results for other dogs than for this one. --Maxamegalon2000 16:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails Google Test. Hynca-Hooley 16:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aparently not even the only Gracie to die of cannine parvo [21]. This seems nn bio to me. joshbuddytalk 16:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO since there isn't a WP:PETS. This is the 3rd poochie AfD I've seen in a couple of weeks. If these sorts of articles increase, maybe we need to discuss animal notability criteria. If perchance this is kept it is in dire need of cleanup.--Isotope23 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as rather unverifiable, and likely non-notable per a pets extension of WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im deleting it- as i cant verify sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.212.240 (talk • contribs) .

  • I was kind of disposed to overlook all the delete votes until I read the article. Cultural symbol? All I could see was that the culture was one family, perhaps even one person. Delete.--KJPurscell 07:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Gerry & the Pacemakers. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacemakers[edit]

Yet another unnotable, unreleased film with a grand total of zero google hits. —Xezbeth 14:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Geogre with summary Unsigned, undistributed, myspace. -- JLaTondre 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless (band)[edit]

Prod tag removed. Appears nn. Sending here for review. Monkeyman(talk) 14:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Found nothing in the article or on the group's website to indicate that the group meets WP:MUSIC. --Allen3 talk 15:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn band page. — joshbuddytalk 15:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete (unless article is expanded with verifiable facts to establish significance). Would have been a valid speedy, I think. Friday (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crzrussian 16:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7 as no notability assertion per WP:MUSIC. --Kinu t/c 18:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirect to Einstürzende Neubauten. howcheng {chat} 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Einstuezende Neubauten[edit]

Dead-end article, lemma mis-spelled, existing article with correct lemma QEDquid 15:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not redirect to correctly spelt article, then? Hynca-Hooley 15:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirected to Einstürzende Neubauten - therefore, done. Please close this AfD, nice Mr (or Mrs) administrator. Proto||type 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Init[edit]

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR

Janitorial nomination following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ntoskrnl. "Wikipedia isn't a technical how-to or an indiscriminate collection of information; see WP:NOT." may apply here also. No vote from me at this stage. kingboyk 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be withdrawn now. There's a clear keep concensus. As I said it was a janitorial nomination to stimulate some debate and focus minds at the other AFD. I maintain that the article is something of a howto (it even uses the dreaded "you") but the ((tone)) tag addresses that issue. --kingboyk 21:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: An important and somewhat visible element of Linux/Unix boot. The article still needs the clean-up, though. Peter Grey 15:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the article could still use some cleanup (i.e. increasing its relevance). Without Init, you wouldn't have a running system; you'd just have a kernel sitting there doing nothing. --Elkman - (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep — This is neither a technical how-to, nor an indiscriminate fact. The init daemon is a key component of UNIX. — RJH 16:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — the article is not at all like a how-to, and the topic is notable. — A.M. 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, yeah. --maru (talk) contribs 20:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • technical keep, as sufficiently relevant to be non-indiscriminate and useful to readers. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One middle finger[edit]

Delete. It seems to me that this article has no verifiable facts, does not at all contain a link, and most likely is a vanity page for the band created by this Poomunger character. Robotshuffle 15:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The finger. Proto||type 16:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN band, joke page: "The information on this page may be completely incorrect." - Rynne 17:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure garbage. Send it where it belongs. --Krashlandon (e) 21:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy (A7 - band). One album apparently completed. Claim that they are signed (with no releases) to Sugar Shack Records appears to be false, as they are not listed on the label's website. Searching for the band with a qualifier ["One Middle Finger" "Burnham On Sea"] provides a grand total of 15 unique hits. -- Saberwyn 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Chairman S. Talk 05:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilton Mall[edit]

This article is full of unverified information about some mall. There's nothing to indicate any significance of the mall in question, it just exists. Most of the article content consists of a list of stores. Wikipedia is not a phone book. Friday (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are an awful lot of malls in Category:Shopping malls in New York that just exist. (Not to mention all the other states which I didn't examine.) Where should the line be drawn? Thatcher131 16:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's sorta what Afd decides, isn't it? Personally, I don't think we need to worry too much about where to draw the line- we let our sources draw that line for us. If reliable sources aren't saying much about this mall, we won't have much to say about it either. But, for those that want a firmer guideline, we do have WP:CORP for inclusion of companies. I see nothing in the article to indicate the mall company meets the guidelines. (The guideline more or less says what I'm saying- it depends on reliable sources to establish significance. ) Friday (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As stated on the article's talk page, I think that there is enough here that a reasonable article could be built including historical information, etc. my default action would be to label it as a stub and move on. However, I would not vote against deletion. cmh 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nom should know that we have tags for unreferenced content. Article contents can also be improved through editing. Participants here should see Category:Shopping malls in the United States for some of our excellent mall articles. Wilton is not "some mall" for the folks in Saratoga Springs, New York. Of course, Saratoga is just "some town" that just "exists" and maybe we just shouldn't talk about it at all. -- JJay 20:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is notable about the article that merits an entry in an encylopedia? While Saratoga Springs, New York is a nice place to vist or stay in, that fact alone does not make the mall notable. The fact that other articles may be similar does not mean that this article is OK. The significance of the mall could be noted om those articles or it may be that no one has really looked at the article to see if it belongs. Vegaswikian 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs work, but this is a valid topic for an article. RayGates 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important to the economy of the northern portion of the greater Albany, New York region. Kappa 12:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio by me. Chick Bowen 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mareco Broadcasting Network, Inc.[edit]

Delete Advertisement for radio stations written in first person BinaryTed 15:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable, but needs to be rewritten BADDLY. Possibly copyvio too since it reads like a station bio off a website. Mike (T C) 15:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. Found this page which appears to be a word for word copy. I'll apply the appropriate copyvio tags. --BinaryTed 20:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently this isn't the first time article in question was flagged for copyvio... it was flagged on Feb 20 and stood for 8 days until an anon IP reverted to remove the copyvio template without making any substantive change to the text. I went ahead and put the copyvio tag back on, however since this apparently already gone past 7 days without action it should still qualify for deletion. --BinaryTed 18:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action Battlefield[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azure Sheep[edit]

  • Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement [talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete An ok mod but not notable. Nigelthefish 13:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; all but the most exceptional game mods are non-notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : This nomination was made as part of a WP:POINT. Nlitement is upset over his article being nominated for AfD as unnotable, so he is nominating several other mods as AfD in retaliation. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've played and completed this mod, and DAV was quite well known by any fan of Single Player Half-Life mods. However, I don't really think this is a notable mod. The only truly notable single player half life mods were Poke646 and They Hunger. There may be a few more, but Azure Sheep just doesn't cut the mustard. - Hahnchen 15:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 1918[edit]

  • Comment : This nomination was made as part of a WP:POINT. Nlitement is upset over his article being nominated for AfD as unnotable, so he is nominating several other mods as AfD in retaliation. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely notable. I never played it myself, but I do play Forgotten Hope and the BF1918 seems to be the second most popular out there. Halibutt 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable. Ive never played it either, but from what I hear this is a very popular mod second only to Pirates and Forgotten Hope. The Raven 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the keep voters who seem to know what they are talking about. Kappa 12:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 40k[edit]

  • Speedy Delete- It's either BLATANT copyvio or blatant vanity. "our mod?" Read the page just a bit. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I know these are WP:POINT nominations, but apart from the Firearms one they're pretty good. - Hahnchen 15:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also


  • Comment : This nomination was made as part of a WP:POINT. Nlitement is upset over his article being nominated for AfD as unnotable, so he is nominating several other mods as AfD in retaliation. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Dogfight[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Interstate 1982[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Pirates[edit]

  • Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement [talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable mod. Arrrg. Nigelthefish 13:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; all but the most exceptional game mods are non-notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom is violating WP:Point, see [[23]]. That said, Delete --Mmx1 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Jedi6 00:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete? Was a notable mod for some, was most original by far. Shipyard 14:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrainBread[edit]

  • Comment : This nomination was made as part of a WP:POINT. Nlitement is upset over his article being nominated for AfD as unnotable, so he is nominating several other mods as AfD in retaliation. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: First major multiplayer zombie mod for HL --HashiriyaGDB 04:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Life[edit]

  • Strong Keep. Because Counterlife is a single-player mod, it will be very difficult for Alexa rankings to prove notability. However, Counterlife was the FIRST sub-mod, that is, a mod of a mod (in this case counter-strike). It was also one of the first mods to take an online game and bring it offline. Notable for it's innovative yet simplistic features. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : This nomination was made as part of a WP:POINT. Nlitement is upset over his article being nominated for AfD as unnotable, so he is nominating several other mods as AfD in retaliation. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I know of this mod, and whereas it attained some coverage in the HL and CS community, it never took off. - Hahnchen 15:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy Territory Fortress[edit]

  • Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement [talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom is violating WP:Point, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/True_Combat:_Elite. That said, Delete --Mmx1 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a run-of-the-mill unreleased/beta mod played by two people. =) ETF has been published, actually finalized nowadays and, as far as I know, also got some media buzz (a Slashdot article, at least). It's widely played, too, unless it suddenly died down or something while I wasn't looking. I'll try to find some other media mentions if possible. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I touched it up a little. Probably needs more work. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm changing to Keep or failing that Merge to Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (or Team Fortress). I was first a little bit skeptical about the nom's claims elsewhere that this has 20 players, but looks like that while there's tons of servers, almost all are empty and there was like 30 players. Egh. So, er, it did die down. However, the mod itself is notable enough for a mention in an article; I'm really not sure if it's notable enough for an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 

.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Hero Cycle[edit]

Band is non notable joshbuddytalk 14:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not your promotional vehicle -Quasipalm 03:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was withdrawn — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firearms (computer game)[edit]

  • Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement [talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This was the number 3 mod after CS and TFC for halflife 1 until DoD came out. It was on contract with valve for distribution with all new HL cd's I believe starting with game of the year edition. It was featured in PC Gamer magazine. Won mod of the year from PCGamer and runner up game of the year for 2000. Do a google search, and you'll come up with hundreds of hits. Go to forums.worldatwarmod.com, and you'll see a huge following on the Firearms section there for it. Did the user do any research at all before listing this, or is this a WP:POINT? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This mod was among the most enduring Half-Life mods ever created, and still has a following to this day, nearly eight years after first being released. It also features a very innovative bipod system that I have yet to see used in another game, which allows bipods to be deployed at any point on a map. MrFiend497 05:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whoever believes Firearms is an unnotable mod must either have a very short memory or not be aware of the facts listed above. Firearms was one of the premiere Half Life 1 mods and even today, eight years after its initial release, a strong player base supports it. Firearms is also the innovative game that brought the reinforcement (AKA, ticket) system, in game parachutes, a massive inventory of armaments, and true to life firemodes into computer games. Valve themselves offered to purchase Firearms during its prime. The only thing unnotable about this game is how interested the generic Counter-Strike player is with it. Natrapsmai 23:55, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies Sorry, I didn't check into the article very well. As you see, the most played Enemy Territory (3rd most played FPS) modification got AfD'd (the article itself is good) because someone thinks it's unnotable. Yes, and I'm talking about people who don't know a tiny bit about games making useless bullshit into the deletion talk. I provided them with: magazine scans plus referance to two magazines featurin the mod with a full text and files included on a DVD, over 8 external communities and fansites, several leagues and clanwar meeting channels on Quakenet, number of players (300-400 at any given time, also taking to notice that it's the first _test version_ with irritating bugs which haven't been updated for over a year now! (0.49 will come out at the end of March, so you, as honorable gamers, know what would happen then - people haven't forgotten this mod; never, I haven't, I just don't play because it hasn't been updated, and oh-oho-ho HOW MANY players like me will come back when the new update hits download servers, with tons of improvements - take the number of players registered at the forums: 2000, so how many players do register at the forums? Maybe 50-60%, so it's your move now to decide its notability)). So, per their manners in handling notability, I decided to quickly check up some _definitely_ unnotable mods for BF/HL/etc and listed them all for AfD (if True Combat: Elite is actually worth an AfD, then why wouldn't they be?). The thing is, that I didn't really read the articles and thought that 11-14 total AfDs from a very large list of mods wouldn't bring up so many "bad targets", but I was wrong. I'll remove the AfD. Apologies for this. --nlitement [talk] 16:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've removed the AfD from the page per the original poster's decision. I'd advise the original poster to remember not to make a WP:POINT. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no reason not to WP:AGF. I don't think the nominator was trying to make a point or be disruptive -- they probably just didn't know whether it was notable, and now they do :)
— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propertycasting and Travelcasting[edit]

These articles are advertisements joshbuddytalk 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - insult to Wikipedia. Not only do the talk pages admit they are adverts, but the author has simply copy-and-pasted his own website/s. -- RHaworth 22:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for ad and copyvio.--み使い Mitsukai 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great War (game)[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campsie City Reds[edit]

Delete. Gang existed for two years, non notable Crzrussian 15:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Campsie Reds" - 1 hit on Google.
"Campsie City Reds" - zero hits. Crzrussian 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • nn, tone sounds more like someone pining for their alma mater than an article on a gang. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 16:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: doesn't Google, maybe not even real. --djrobgordon 16:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and unverifiable per nom. --Kinu t/c 20:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google search came up with nothing on this group. [25]. A search of Australian media indexes came up empty as well. The article appears to indicate that they were minor criminals participating in shoplifting and other petty offences. Could possibly be speedied as non-notable organisation. Capitalistroadster 23:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, actually, it's not obviously nn, so speedy would probably no be appropriate.Crzrussian 13:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Happy" Virus[edit]

Somehow, this article does not seem to fit in with the rest of the encyclopedia. It reads sort of like an editorial, an informative report. Is this virus notable? HappyCamper 15:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Personal essay/research, or else a hoax. — RJH 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — personal experiance, not relivent in the manor presented Betacommand 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if for no other reason than "The "Happy" Virus was found by this author on February 25, 2006." Postdlf 16:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. A Happy virus does exist, but it's a seven-year-old virus that most systems are innoculated against unless you aren't running an antivirus program at all. Likely this is an attempt to create an "authorative" site to reference for a virus hoax.--み使い Mitsukai 16:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Makes me want to start a new category; "either nothing or something". Its such a mishmash I can't make head nor tail of it. It's certainly not encyclopedic, and has a good chance of being a hoax. Hynca-Hooley 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probable hoax, not WP:V per description.--Isotope23 17:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a category to Delete for cluelessness? Guess not. In that case, just Delete per above: Personal essay/experience Fan1967 17:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place for personal accounts of experiences with viruses. If the virus can be established as important (I have found nothing to indicate that with Google, etc) then the article needs a complete rewrite, and Mitsukai's above comment seems to indicate that the virus is unimportant. Cool3 19:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete As has been said previously, this is a personal account and does not belong on Wikipedia Zak.l 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for a large number of reasons, including, but not limited to, non-notable, unencyclopedic, vanity, original research, unverifiable... EdGl 00:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic, personal research Wyoskier 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Personal research and useless CloudNine 16:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What can I say, I'm following the herd. -- Jbamb 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Hell, I remember that 99 virus Computerjoe 11:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete badly written, personal essay, does not appear to be factually correct, no references, not notable.
    • Above unsigned comment by 85.144.113.76. Bart133 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-ultra high strength delete personal experience Bart133 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal essay, no references, not noteworthy, more than likely a hoax article. --Maikeru 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I'm a virus researcher, and this was clearly not written by someone who knew what they were doing. This does match behaviour of other viruses, and I doubt it is a complete hoax (although several parts seem just made-up), but this is entirely un-scientific. It's akin to someone getting rabies and writing an article on "Toothpaste Mouth Syndrome." --Trafton 01:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 result, malformed nomination which belongs at TfD.--Alhutch 17:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroon infobox[edit]

Delete because it was out of date & replaced with Template:Infobox country MJCdetroit 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably meant Template:Cameroon infobox. — RJH 16:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (speedy deletion criterion G4). howcheng {chat} 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob (Weird Al Yankovic song)[edit]

Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob (Weird Al Yankovich song). It offers no significant information that isn't already on the Poodle Hat article. -- Elvis 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hilton[edit]

A vanity article. Subject doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Conscious 16:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was WITHDRAWN by nominator (me). There's clearly no deletion concensus emerging. Largely as a result of this nomination, WikiProject The Beatles has been formed, with the consolidation and tidying of articles such as thing a high priority. I will therefore withdraw and close this nomination and we can deal with it over there. kingboyk 23:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Parker (Beatles Song)[edit]

Article was PRODded but the tag was removed. A non notable song. Yes, I know it's by the Beatles but it didn't even make it to the Anthology compilations of outtakes. Merge or Delete. kingboyk 17:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Changed to merge or delete. --kingboyk 15:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As nominator I am leaning towards a merge into a new list or overview article. Can interested parties let themselves be known, and if any suitable merge articles are found list them here or in another suitable venue. --kingboyk 20:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, you just want to delete an article. That´s really funny :-). Good luck. (even a bad Beatles song is a Beatles song and therefore interesting) Greetings 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.60.106 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. Beatles.Herostratus 17:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beatles. Listen, I like the Beatles (and I'm one of the few Wikipedia editors who can say they've been on national TV talking about them) but do we need an article on an unreleased nonsense song?! --kingboyk 18:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keap per above. Staecker 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to deny wikipedia users information about this song. Kappa 18:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't argue with that logic. I maintain that it's quite a hopeless article, however. How about collecting all of these (as I'm sure there are others out there) in something like Beatles unreleased songs or Beatles outtakes? Another option, given it's apparent inclusion in the film Let It Be, is to merge it to Let It Be (film) which is currently a (promising) stub and which could use some padding. --kingboyk 19:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem out of place in a stub about the film, but the suggestion of somewhere like Beatles unreleased songs might be reasonable. Kappa 19:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. If anyone finds similar candidates (and/or an existant page which we could merge to) please advise. --kingboyk 19:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Let It Be (album). Never released officially, and the article doesn't suggest that the song is notable for any other reason than "it's by the Beatles". No recording act should have articles dedicated to every one of their songs, and the article on this one is only a paragraph long anyway. Extraordinary Machine 19:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete -- not sure what to merge it to, but I don't think this song deserves an article. Tuf-Kat 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Songs should not have articles unless they are notable in and of themselves --Cymsdale 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Let It Be (album) or Let It Be (film). Regardless of being recorded by The Beatles, it fails WP:MUSIC/SONG - Rynne 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Beatles bootlegs. The criterion for Beatles tracks as stand alone articles should be the same as for other artists namely is it a significant single or album track. Is there enough verifiable material to justify a standalone article? My position on this track is that there isn't. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A List of unreleased songs by The Beatles would be useful, allowing a paragraph each on such songs as this one. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Extraordinary Machine. COncur with Gruntness on the list comment. MLA 09:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
btw.:The Beatles have dedicated a song to (former) American beauty Suzy Parker, who could be their mother...... For me that´s significant enough.Greetings to Kingboyk from Berlin. :-) 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.60.106 (talk • contribs) .
  • Of course some of the songs listed on your external link have now been published. I take the point though and am more than happy for the all the stubby, low quality articles on unreleased/minor release Beatles songs to be collected into one article. Go for it. --kingboyk 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of minor Beatles songs. BD2412 T 02:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into either a list of minors, or into the Let It Be article (whichever makes most sense)... Lets not lose the content though, with an outright delete. (normally I'd vote keep but I see the argument here) Shameless plug: Interested editors might want to consider joining WikiProject The Beatles, which got started partly as a result of discussion about this very article. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Car[edit]

Another unnotable, unreleased film. This one gets two google hits, one of which is a mention in someone's blog. —Xezbeth 17:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unreleased film with no press coverage. Sounds like a potentially funny movie. Nice website too.--Isotope23 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. Stifle 01:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodriot[edit]

Neologism. Can't find a single google hit for it. —Xezbeth 17:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete neologism. I'm a big fan of the zombie movie genre and I've never heard this term used in this context.--Isotope23 17:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone took the Zombie Survival Guide way too seriously. Haikupoet 04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 01:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duotech[edit]

Fictitious company... not WP:V, Only Thomas Sakaguchi Google finds is a man who was sent to a Japanese relocation center during WWII. Somehow I don't think he was a Nintendo modder.--Isotope23 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom.--Isotope23 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. Wyoskier 03:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the first six words of the article. Stifle 01:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. pschemp | talk 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===Kingdom of Kurdistan=== --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC) According to the article two "kingdom of kurdistans" exist.[reply]

  • Both existed for a very brief period of time (one being only two months).
  • Article has very very little coverage and portrays what appears to be "rebellions" as independent nations.
First choice: delete
Second choice: broken into two articles with a better title
--Cool CatTalk|@ 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the second choice, what would you have the articles be named? Kingdom of Kurdistan (1922-1924) and Kingdom of Kurdistan (1925) with Kingdom of Kurdistan as a disambiguation page? - FrancisTyers 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion is good, only I would recommend teritorial, rather than temporal disambiguation: Kingdom of Kurdistan (Sulaymaniyah) and Kingdom of Kurdistan (Palu), because the time way may misleadingly say that it was one and the same, only at different time periods. Mukadderat 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really think perhaps a merge in to History of the Kurds may be better (a recent suggestion below). The two entities did not last 3 years combined, there really inst much, articles cant develop much. I am not trying to delete information, but this "article" can't develop. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The article is cited and whilst only a stub has the potential for improvement - I would be amenable to a disambiguation page upon completion of two separate articles, but I think for the time being that one will do. I will assume good faith, but this nomination does seem suspect, Cool Cat hasn't discussed this on the talk page at all. - FrancisTyers 18:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cited or not this articles real content already exists under history of kurds, stand alone there isnt much to write about as countries did not exist long enough for anything interesting. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Fad (ix) 21:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Heja Helweda 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a real historical thing. I expanded it a bit, giving correct names and places, to make further searches easier.Mukadderat 05:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I am not suggesting it isnt notable however the entities did not last long enought to be article worthy. One "country" lasted 2 months (with no recognition) another only 2 years with british occupation until British decided they didn't want this country. There isn't much else to say about them aside from who their only leader was. History of the Kurds explains the matter and this article alone cant grow beyond a stub. This article could redirect to History of the Kurds. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please aloow me to respectfully disagree. "History of Kurds" is a big topic, with potentially a very big article. "Kingdom of Kurdistan" is a small but a separate topic. It is in wikipedia tradition to create separate articles by cutting fdrom big ones, not vice versa. The statement "can't grow" is also probably made in polemic haste. I am sure that in due time Allah will guide a Kurdish editor to expand the article. I am not an expert in this historic time and place, so I added only some basic details, but in fact I've already seen much more in the internet. Mukadderat 19:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for this poor quality article when History of the Kurds exists and is a high quality article. MLA 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am afraid this opinion is made with poor judgement. History of the Kurds, as good as it is, does not say a single word about the topic you want to delete. And this is reasonable: such a general topic cannot be contained in a single article. History of the Kurds must be a broad overview, with details scattered in subpages. Mukadderat 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My judgement is based on the following: - there exists an article called History of the Kurds and in this article is a section called History_of_the_Kurds#Modern_History_of_the_Kurds with a link to a main article called Modern history of the Kurds which is currently redlinked. The section in question covers the period 1828-present day. There currently isn't any reference to the two items of information in Kingdom of Kurdistan which are an attempt at independence from the British mandate which did not last long and an attempt at independence from Turkey which did not last long. These two pieces of information are part of the modern history of the Kurds and should be referenced there. An article about independence struggles in Kurdistan would have more than just two basic pieces of information and would not be called Kingdom of Kurdistan. There should in my view be an article on the modern history of Kurdistan and at most, the information presented in Kingdom of Kurdistan would be a small section within that. MLA 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The key words in your kind reply are "redlinked" and "should", which only confirm my opinion that the nomination for deletion was a bit of misunderstanding. You just don't delete information from wikipedia just because it should be a part of the article which does not exist yet. I am not in a position to evaluate the validity of the term "Kingdom of Kurdistan"; I may understand the position that if someone proclaims himself King, this does not necessarily mean that there is a "Kingdom". But this is a different issue, and again, you just don't delete a correct and significant information from wikipedia. We already have an article about Republic of Mahabad, which was just as shortlived. Mukadderat 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm.... Republic of Mahabad was also called kingdom of kurdistan... I for one am confused in this flood of 3 kingdoms with identical titles. Even a disambiguation page would be hard to create. Since all 3 of the kingdoms existed/ceased to exist repetively in the same time period. It is perfectly fine to explain this under a "modern hostory of kurds" rather than pathetic individual articles that cannot grow beyond stubs. Each article can hardly fill a stub.
            • Where was the RoM called the Kingdom of Kurdistan? Well, disambig pages are for clearing up confusion (ambiguity)! :) Again your baseless assertions that the articles can "hardly fit a stub", please prove this or refrain from reiterating it. We have huge articles on demonstrations that only lasted one day, so to say that a country or rebellion that lasted in one case 2 years and in another a number of months can't fill an article is pure propaganda. - FrancisTyers 09:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mukadderat the nomination was not a misunderstanding, when I nominated the article for deletion there was only two lines of information. The article improvement drive converted the article into a BARE stub explaining two diferent kingdoms. How many kingdom of kurdistans were there?
          • --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reading your all last replies I regret to reiterate that it is a misunderstanding. If the article is poor, the proper solution is to "merge and redirect" using be bold approach. The historical entity "Kingdom of Kurdistan" did exist, and people may search for this term, so deletion is totally inappropriate. Mukadderat 19:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let develop. --dcabrilo 18:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is of poor quality and unsourced, probably nonsense talk by Kurd nationalists --Kash 10:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poor quality is a value judgement, please make complaints about article content on the talk page. Unsourced is not true, the article has several sources. Please try and remain civil and don't characterise other users edits as "nonsense talk". Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 10:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve the article. The article is part of Iraqi and Kurdish history. It's still is a stub and will become an informative article.Diyako Talk + 13:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kingdom of Kurdistan did not last long, thanks to the British Royal Air Force acting on behalf of a puppet government in Baghdad... come on... --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But instead the Kingdom has its own long story and deserves its own article in Wikipedia.Diyako Talk + 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why delete??? It's important historical info. -- infinity0 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to provide information not available elsewhere. I wouldn't support a merge for the sole reason that [[[History of the Kurds]] is already a huge page. Does need some cleanup and sourcing, though, no argument there. --InShaneee 20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Ezo Republic lasted less than a year, and I don't see people trying to delete that. Naelphin 10:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the historical information is important, it should be discussed in a page dedicated to the unsuccessful attempts/rebellions/... by Kurds to establish independent states. Unsuccessful rebellions should not be presented in Wikipedia as though they were real states. In short, keep the info, but present it impartially and in a page dedicated to the whole issue of attempts to build a Kurdish state. Shervink 15:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
    • From your description it follows that you mean "merge and redirect", rather than "delete", because your problem is with the title, rather than content. Please read the deletion policy about options in voting. Mukadderat 18:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is lots of problems with the content as well. Those few issues mentioned in it which qualify as historical studies must be merged into another article. For the most part, in line with others in favor of deleting the article, I think the article is simply a fabrication of history, portraying rebellions as though they were states. I have also stated that very clearly in my previous comment. I definitely think it should be deleted. Shervink 16:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
    • The article is still a stub, There are many issues which still have not been discussed. deleting that article although will satisfy Turkish and Iranian nationalism for a very short time (but It never happens!) but it does not help wikipedia. This is why this article should kept.Diyako Talk + 16:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no need to repeat yourself. You already voted, and we both have made our points clear. Shervink 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
  • Keep per FrancisTyers and others; Nomination doesn't offer substantial arguments for deletion rather than improvement and/or reorganizing.--Sean Black (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Rename to Nochiya. pschemp | talk 20:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shamezdin[edit]

I am not sure what to do with this article, it is for one in bad shape.

Google returns little to no information: [26] (all hits appear to be lists contain the word "Shamezdin", not sure if it is even relevant)

Overal it appears to be useless if you strip it from random lists (portraying it as a county if I am not mistaken, hard to tell with horible quality)

  • Hence delete --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Seems to be a real place in Assyria. Dlyons493 Talk 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes but no google hits with content. The place now is known as Şemdinli and is governed by Turkey (according to the article). Definately not a part of Assyria today. Article has colored photos of people and is a mess... Delete and make it a stub is more aproporate in my view. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's modern Iraq or Turkey and there may be some NPOV issues with the article. But there's quite a lot of content that I imagine could be referenced from written sources. Dlyons493 Talk 21:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT --A2raya07 21:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! I believe the page just needs some clean up. It is one of the well known Assyrian regions and deserves its own article.Diyako Talk + 21:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a real place. Look at the earlier versions of this article. --Khoikhoi 00:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in need of cleanup though but it does appear to exist and locations are enyclopedic material.
  • CHANGE NAME, it should be called Nochiya not Shamezdin. Much more relevent.MLA 09:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll agree to this one, Shamezdin is the appropriate name of this district, but Nochiya is the common name --A2raya07 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Khoikhoi Carlossuarez46 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course Shamezdin is not shown, it is just an English transscription. As Nochiya, the article should stay. There needs to be reference to "Shemdinli", though. --Erdal Ronahi 11:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - The name change to 'Nochiya' makes a lot of sense because Nochiya is not just a geographical area, it is also an important Tribe of the Assyrians, who are currently leaders in both religous and political matters. Admitably, the information needs to be re-arranged to make sense, a clean up is required. Deleting this information would indeed be a loss for Wikipedia.
  • KEEP - It is a very usefull article containing alot of information
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep but Rename to List of songs about famous people. - Bobet 11:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about famous people (other than politicians)[edit]

Err, what's so bad about politicians? The exclusion makes the list somewhat random IMO, and therefore kinda pointless. Conti|✉ 17:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, rename to list of songs about famous people and treat list of songs about politicians as a sub-list. Kappa 17:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and rename per Kappa. I'm a little uncertain about the verifiability of the list, both now and in the future, but will defer to the judgement of the primary contributors to this article. Would also suggest dividing into sections (either by famous person if there are enough hits, or by famous person type... i.e. musicians, actors) -- Saberwyn 21:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vague name, no encyclopedical value, cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename: There is plenty of interest in this article and the name would not be inherently POV if renamed. I am also baffled why politicians should be excluded. Gilliamjf 07:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the relative size and detailed organisation at List of songs about politicians. -- Saberwyn 11:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, and organize: This is a useful article, I think it would be better if it was sorted by the person the song was about rather then the song title. Excluding politicians is a good idea, and maybe spliting it up by type would be good, and then just have a header for politician with a link to the other article would be good. I am willing to volenteer to do it. Nekura 23:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, and organize: As said above, a fine article to have next to List of songs which refer to Jesus and list of songs about politicians JohnRussell 18:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Phillip Tipton[edit]

Unsigned artist, whose band The Sparrows is also up for deletion MacRusgail 18:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if the band aren't notable, this guy clearly isn't. MLA 10:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--ImpartialCelt 16:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Hooperbloob 21:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majority choice approval[edit]

Previous nomination. There is finally a consensus emerging here that creations from the election-methods mailing list do not deserve a mention on Wikipedia without further outside notability (other than the subscribers' websites). -- Dissident (Talk) 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article might be salvageable since it contains a reference to an election method that has been invented and used a pretty long time ago. It probably requires a move though. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JeffBurdges 16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very interesting, and I think it meets the requirements. Keep. Stifle 01:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. pschemp | talk 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

33 1/3[edit]

A list of books from a redlink publisher, by a redlink editor and redlink authors. Notability? Apparently taken from a blog [28]. Delete kingboyk 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Addendum: Has only 1 incoming link from mainspace, which is actually intended to be a link to an unconnected album of the same name. --kingboyk 21:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment; I do remember reading about one of these through the Amazon.com website. Whether this makes the series notable in itself is still unclear to me, though. Fourohfour 18:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add an ((importance)) tag to the article. --kingboyk 18:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up. This is a real series of books, for music buffs, about the making of various classic rock albums. They're not exactly best-sellers, but some have been quite well-reviewed. The series probably deserves an entry, even if the individual books don't. The links on the book titles should be removed, as they're linking to the WP entries for the albums they're based on, not the books themselves. Fan1967 18:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Amazon has all of the books in the series and 24 of 26 are currently available. They all have Amazon sales ranks around 200,000 (not exactly rendering them notable, i know), but they do have high ratings on Amazon. Secondly the mere fact that a subject has redlinks may indicate the lack of depth of Wikipedia not the lack of notability of an article. Cool3 19:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a highly notable book series. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete titles not yet published. Thatcher131 23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 09:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Mavani[edit]

Delete as NN bio related to NN comic series. ((prod)) tag was removed by author. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 18:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable --Grocer 18:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete as it is a factual account of a person that has changed peoples lives. He has shown many people the flaws of modern youth culture, and that should be told. LethalWeapon 18:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.105.244 (talk • contribs) .

Don't Delete this he has changed my life and he has got me off the wrong track. I hope you will be able to save this page in order to spred his word to others —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.129.245.194 (talk • contribs) .

Ye don't delete, Amal is soooooooo G! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.121.17 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Judging from the tone of some of the responses here, the "self-portrait" on the article itself, and other contributions made by the unsigned voters (e.g. Haberdashers' Aske's Boys' School), I'm guessing that we are dealing with some school kids having some fun rather than an attempt at a serious article --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NN/Vanity. --Ragib 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broke tee[edit]

advertising Grocer 18:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Non-notable ~ Booyabazooka 18:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. A7. Grocer, no need to list these here at AfD forcing public votes, check out WP:CSD cmh 05:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ground418[edit]

non-notable Grocer 18:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Around 2000 Google hits, but I've never heard of them, and don't believe them to be notable within the computer / information security field. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete A7. No assertion of notability. A1 no context. cmh 04:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable group. Stifle 01:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was dealt with by copyvio. Mailer Diablo 01:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Campbell[edit]

Delete. Someone put a ((db-a7)) on it, but it does assert notability. However, I feel he's not notable anyway; the most significant accomplishment is a failed run for a minor riding. Thus, I'm so I'm changing to AFD. Superm401 - Talk 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NSLE (T+C) at 01:56 UTC (2006-03-05)

Mark Defillo[edit]

non-notable, possible self-promotion Tom Harrison Talk 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete as per nom cmh 20:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy if possible as ((nn-bio)). We've had quite a few articles about random druids lately. Stifle 01:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Mar. 9, '06 [03:40] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Ten13Concept[edit]

Vanity- pasted in from a myspace page: [30]. Staecker 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be a copyvio, I've tagged it as such. Delete anyway as per WP:NMG. Stifle 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cashville Records[edit]

I seen Cashville Records website and looked at it clearly. I believe that it's possible for it to true, but there is no official word from Interscope Records. Interscope has the say in that matter. To me, personally, it looks like a fan site devoted to Young Buck. The B.G. is in talks with G-Unit, but not a signed member of the group or an artist established to any label other than Chopper City Records, his own established label. I doubt B.G. would be a part of any label after Cash Money cheated him out of money. Not saying G-Unit would, but it's more likely he wouldn't. LILVOKA.

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This nom seems more about the content of the article rather than that it exists. Cashville records seems notable enough on a quick google test. The content about lil-scrappy conflicts with other sources though. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, don't really see a reason to delete this. Stifle 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is there a real question about its accuracy? "I don't think B.G. would do that" is really not much to go on. Carlo 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no assertion of notability in the article. 3 recording artists without a sigificant release between them does not an notable record label make. Who are these people? Why are they notable? Deizio 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Um, Young buck is one of the more popular modern gangsta rappers out there. I don't particularly like him, but HIGHLY notable: his singles have plenty of radio airtime ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough. Asked my 23 year old son as well and he indicated that he had heard of them.
  • Keep, I have no knowledge of anything about the music industry, but after hearing the above arguments, it seems its notable enough --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Young Buck is notable but that doesn't mean Cashville Records are. MLA 12:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. mikka (t) 21:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right now I'm listening to a song called "Straight out of Ca$hville" released on Cashville records, by Young Buck, Ludacris, and the Game. If that's not notable (the 3 arguably hottest currently producing names in hip-hop) then I don't know what is. Young Buck is a rap star. Not just an average rapper, but a star. His label, therefore is also notable. Also, it's a derivative from G-Unit/Interscope Records, what anyone would consider a highly notable group. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but cleanup and expand. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but fix accuracy to align with G-Unit / Interscope Records. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Alexa rank of web site is >600,000. WP:N [31] Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 11:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G Unit South[edit]

This article is nominated for deletion due to the fact that an user created this article without citing the source. There is talks about establishing a label under G-Unit but as of today, that is not confirmed by any reliable source. Your website link is also a fansite not authorized or confirmed by G-Unit or Interscope Records. LILVOKA.

  • Weak delete, needs a source other than its own website. I'm open to change if some external references show up. Stifle 01:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one webpage (hosted on soundclick.com), no reference MaNeMeBasat 08:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit West[edit]

Immediately Delete. You have removed this tag. I ask of you to not remove this tag. If you choose to remove this once again, then you could be blocked. This article is nominated for deletion due to the article lacks sources, and uncomfirmed facts. The article is based on fan rumors and false information. Nothing is mention of G-Unit West through 50 Cent website or through Interscope official statement. There is talk about having a label established under G-Unit. But as of today, there is no official G-Unit West. Thanks LILVOKA.

  • Delete currently junk, maybe a redirect to G-Unit --Jaranda wat's sup 23:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I guess. Stifle 01:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete: a biography that does not assert notability of its subject. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomhut[edit]

Delete - Previously listed as prod by Jnothman, but removed almost immediately by 81.99.206.213. Google search brings up a few hits, but nothing significant outside the Knox website. Also, nothing links to this article, and articles related to Knox (animator) have been recently deleted as non-notable and vanity. TheRealFennShysa 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zélé Café[edit]

Delete: the company that is the subject of this article does not seem to be significant enough to merit inclusion in wikipedia. It looks suspiciosly like self-promotion and product placement Gerrynobody 18:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CORP violation. A chain of two coffee shops does not a notable company make.  (aeropagitica)  22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:CORP and as advertising. I know coffee shops with three locations... do those deserve articles too? --Kinu t/c 23:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy J. Brown[edit]

non notable band - website has 1 music video with song with no lyrics, filmed at home Grocer 18:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 19:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RITTERderPROVINZ[edit]

google says non-notable, cites other non-notable WP candidate article for deletion Grocer 18:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - speedy if possible, as it does not currently assert notability....Scott5114 19:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Durin 22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Early Hinduism[edit]

I, the creator nominate this article for deletion becoz:

  1. It is entirely unsourced.
  2. It was an ill-conceived fork to relieve pressure from the main History of Hinduism article.
  3. It has remained dormant and un-improved for many months.
  4. It is mainly a copy-paste job from other articles.

Rama's Arrow 19:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As creator you can speedy this per author's request.--Isotope23 20:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been other editors, so G7 may not apply. Rama's Arrow 20:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the other editors, the were formatting and wording changes, nobody really added an substantial text. Might be worth a try at G7, but otherwise Delete.--Isotope23 21:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection. - Bobet 11:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friend codes[edit]

This itself is non-notable. I suggest the salvage of any material into the relevant article Computerjoe 19:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Banes. -- JLaTondre 21:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TT Players[edit]

This is a list with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Prod was removed without notable changes Not my leg 19:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with calls for speedy if it is possible in this case. Not my leg 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and bury in the backyard. Is this speedy-able? --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; list of non notable gamers.--Isotope23 20:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, speedy if possible for lack of context. --Kinu t/c 20:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete un important list. doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria, however, I don't think. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable group. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, merge/redirect can be discussed and/or done by those interested. W.marsh 04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nick Berg conspiracy theories[edit]

Delete Unencyclopedic speculation - unverifiable San Saba 19:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article consists entirely of original research and random speculation and reads more like paranoid ranting than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not unsupported fantasizing. Indrian 19:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There was rampant speculation but unless it can be sourced, Delete --Mmx1 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is rather noteworthy, I believe that it should be kept, but more links and sources should be available in the article for verification. It's a fascinating article, actually. - XX55XX 02:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and possibly merge stuff that is sourced/verified to Nick Berg MLA 10:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge after clean up, as per MLA. Shawnc 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Needs to be cleaned up, but this should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.234.26 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flooplestack[edit]

  • Delete. This appears to be a hoax. Firstly, the user that created the article has a username very similar to the name of the article. Secondly, googling "Flooplestack" lead to no results. Thirdly, it simply sounds like a hoax from the name. Thus I think this page should be deleted. Deskana (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Agree with the nominator, should be speedied if it can be. Not my leg 19:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is clearly a hoax. However, due to the fact that somethings might appear to be hoaxes and actually just be little known, ((hoax)) is not a CSD. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 19:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I though as much and that's why I didn't nominate it for speedy. My general rule of thumb is "If you have to perform a check (such as googling the name)" then it's probably not up for speedy deletion". Deskana (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious hoax or attempt at humor. Fan1967 19:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. As one from north of Sweden, I have never heard of anything like this. Also gets cultural details wrong. Henrik 20:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DickDave[edit]

Non-notable. Check website. German article on "Anarchist Academy" does not meantion him or the same other people being members. Other contributions by author are non-notable. Grocer 19:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ~500 Google hits, and 48 for "the speckbeats" . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Grocer 15:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Adrian. Stifle 01:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NSLE (T+C) at 01:57 UTC (2006-03-05)

Mr. derry[edit]

Nonnotable band fails WP:MUSIC. It is also either vanity or copyvio, as the text is taken straight from the band's myspace page. Indrian 19:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete More appropriate in myspace than WP; ((db-band)) candidate for albums/singles released and charted & non-notable members.  (aeropagitica)  22:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, per nom and above. --lightdarkness (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mr. Derry are a big band, deserves representation under the same justification as other such bands articled on WP
  • Delete, possible speedy, per ((db-band)) and the myspace test. Stifle 01:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 GameFAQs message boards.

First let's look at the first four times this has been debated:

Now, coming to this discussions, there is again no new information presented:

  • There are several calims to "internet meme" status, but no evidence given to support these claims. As there is no agreed upon definition of what's a "meme" or what metric it is to be measured by, claims of this nature do not have falsifiability. I'd suggest that this be taken up on the talk of the only relevent guideline, Wikipedia talk:Notability (websites).
  • There are several complaints about "having too many AfDs" but this does not adress the article in question and is also impossible to refute. The simplest answer would be "no there haven't been" but that's not terribly satifying. As this is a systemic problem resulting from the general handling of AfD closure for contentions topics, this would best be adressed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.

Looking over the past discussions, and bearing the above in mind, the resulting redirect is the clearest consensus of not only the participants in this venue but in all the others as well. I thank everyone for their participation.

brenneman{T}{L} 07:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LUEshi[edit]

Delete.Seriously, this page is not notable at all. Nobody outside of its respective boards have ever heard of it, and nobody will. This page is a waste of space. Its claims to 'fame' are also bogus. Spiffy42 19:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, this just got off AfD on a no consensus vote Feb 19th [32]. Apparently this is the 5th AfD this has undergone... so why will this one end any differently than the previous 4?--Isotope23 19:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment: There is nothing at all notable about this page to those outside of its home board. Many of the Keep votes from past nomintions for deletion came from board users who rarely use Wikipedia, that just voted Keep once they saw their so-called-meme was up for deletion. Spiffy42 20:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, this has no notability outside of GameFAQs message board users, but my point is simply that this will probably end in another No Consensus, just like it seems to have every other time. Should be Merged and Redirected to GameFAQs message boards in my opinion.--Isotope23 20:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to that I say Keep and I've never heard of the boards this came from. End repeated afding... otherwise afd becomes "Keep listing til I get the result I want"  ALKIVAR™ 20:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Isotope23. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dismiss this request for deletion. I am from the board that this fad is from, and while this meme may not be notable in my own opinion, the mere fact that 2 administrators have decided to keep the page, as it currently stands, seems reason enough to me to leave this page alone. Seriously, just like GNAA, the page will continue to be nominated, and lack of concensus will still show. Certain memes are notable, certain memes are not. The community has twice failed to demonstrate a lack of notability in this meme. On another note, the community that spawned this meme has their own version of Digg, Slashdot, Myspace, and even a full Shoutcast radio station. They are a big community, dedicated to solidarity and expansion. They are not likely to sit down and watch this page die without a fight. Many of them, like me, are reliable members of Wikipedia, who contribute regularly, boldly, and in good faith. And as for notability, here is an article whose subject is much less notable, but still has survived one VfD, and thus was decided by the community to not be non-notable: Limecat. That's all I have to add. - CorbinSimpson 21:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't agree with the relisting of this for AfD so close to the closing of the last one, but to play devil's advocate for a moment, 2 administrators did not decide to keep the page: there was simply not a consensus to delete based on the opinions rendered and the closing admins did the correct thing: labeled the AfD as no consensus and thus kept the article by default. Furthermore the notability of the community that spawned this meme is not what is being debated here and really has no bearing on the general notability of the meme. I suppose an admin could dismiss the AfD, but it's just going to happen again, so IMO it might as well play out. If this ends No Consensus, it needs a tag that it has survived deletion 5 times so people don't continue to AfD it.--Isotope23 21:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the nominator of the 4th AfD, I'd rather abstain. There's been no consensus to keep or delete on the last 2, and I do think the information should be merged, but this is too soon. I'd rather have waited another month or two to see if the content is really worth keeping or not.--Toffile 21:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what harm is the article doing by being here?--Patashu 21:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is a notable meme Yuckfoo 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into its parent entity. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as I previously stated in the previous AfD. Either keep the page or merge it with GameFAQs. Douglasr007 01:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (and merge any truly significant content) to GameFAQs message boards. Lots of message boards have their own lore which is unencyclopedic to the rest of the world. LUEshi is an example of that. --Metropolitan90 01:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: has become a notable Internet meme, and especially as LUEshi's popularity spreads, people will want to look up what it is, where it began, etc. Steve McLinden 01:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable internet meme on its own. - Stoph 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is getting ridiculous. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stevemc1. Somebody really needs to fix the multiple-jeopardy problem. Haikupoet 04:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Redirect to its board, merge all worthwhile information. Yet another worthless 'meme' nobody's ever heard of. -Rimsy 19:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this internet meme is notable on its own. Silensor 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important meme, stop putting up for deletion. -This unsigned comment left 19:38, 2 March 2006 by Tinyboy21
  • Weak keep, a whole lotta noise 'rounda world at least apparently in some circles. Wait, again? Fifth frigging AfD? Keep. We need some article to surpass GNAA! A high time! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a big fan of this having its own article, but I agree that it's too soon to re-nominate it. This should've been held off for at least a month or two after the last one was closed. WarpstarRider 02:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks notable. Wow, nominated for deletion for the 5th time? --FlyingPenguins 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Outside of the GameFAQs' community, this is hardly notable. Rollie the Guar 13:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep Oh please. It's been up for deletion five times. Every time it's been voted a notable meme. Can we please stop reopening the debate? --Sonicandfffan 17:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, that's a gross misrepresentation. The first debate was no consensus, the second was an improper speedy delete, the third was the only one that had a keep outcome, but that was keep/merge and there was little consensus (information could be kept, but really doens't need an article), and the last one had no consensus, mainly due to heavy vote padding.--Toffile 17:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Intertwined with GameFAQs, YTMND, eBaum's World, drawball, Shigeru Miyamoto, etc...too expansive to simply merge, too notable to delete. BaronMasters 20:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. GameFAQs and its spinoffs are the only places this has notability. The fact that some people from LUE/LL got a printout of the ASCII signed by Miyamoto, took a picture of it taped to the eBaum's offices, and are trying to draw it on Drawball does not give it notoriety outside of the LUE/LL community. If several others not linked to LUE were also using it and referring to it as "LUEshi", it would be different.
    • As it stands, this meme is virtually excLUEsive (see what I did there?) to GameFAQs, LUE, and its spinoffs, and the article's content does nothing to convince me otherwise. My biggest problem here, which I partially stated during the last VfD, is the fact that LUE itself has been deemed not notable enough for its own article (a decision which I personally disagree with, being a regular visitor myself). If the main originators of this meme can't even get their own article, why should their mascot get one? WarpstarRider 11:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't really understand what most people are talking about, but I came here and learned what I wanted to from this article. It serves its purpose. -- 5th nomination?? Does someone hate this page so badly? -- 58.64.102.150 15:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, a lot of people do. LUE, unlike SA and 4chan, is not open to the public (although not by board concensus or vote), and so is quite secretive, appearing elitist and snobby to most of the surrounding communities. Oh, and here's another meme that should be deleted, if the "zomg only oen comunitie uses it, LOLXD delte delete lue sux !!!oneone!!" argument is considered valid: OS-tan. - CorbinSimpson 20:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the best example you could've chosen. I've seen those used plenty outside of Futaba Channel. Plus the OS-tan subject includes a number of different characters, as opposed to a simple ASCII representation of Mario and Yoshi.
    • Also, Assume good faith. I have nothing against LUE; quite the opposite, if you read all of my previous comment. But if LUE itself can't get an article, I don't think this should either. It seems that most of the keep votes here either say "it's notable" with no supporting evidence, or voted to keep simply because it's been voted on with no consensus so many times already. I haven't seen a convincing argument yet as to why this deserves a standalone article. I'd much rather see an article for LUE made, then have the content here merged into it. WarpstarRider 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and that's where the problem starts. Since LUE and LUElinks are private communities, the information that is provided can't be verified and hence the reason why LUElinks can't be recreated and neither can LUE (GameFAQs) Douglasr007 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There have been 4 previous attempts to delete this, and the latest is by a user who doesn't even have his own user page. This meme is as notable as any other, just not as widely-used.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.188.69 (talk • contribs)
    • Uh, slight problem with that. What else makes a meme notable other than it's widespread use?--Toffile 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Origin? Connotation? Offensiveness? Hilarity? - CorbinSimpson 02:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps, but LUEshi has none of those things. I think this line of discussion is probably should be saved for another day, it's a bit off-topic.--Toffile 04:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge and Redirect to GameFAQs message boards - I had to come here to learn what it is. Shingen 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LUEshi is not confined to GameFAQs or related message boards. It is often posted elsewhere which could be part of a message post or signature on virtually any message board in existence. It is the 'mark of LUE' and I feel that many people are currently and will be confused about what it is & means, and where it came from. I only say keep because I feel like Wikipedia is a great place to alleviate confusion & spread information. -Statikeffeck 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scenario: Someone goes to a site and BAM. There's an ASCII of Mario and Yoshi. Under it, it says "LUEshi Forever." Now, how the hell is some person supposed to find out what LUEshi is? Wikipedia. This scenario is actually more common than detractors are willing to admit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.74.79.242 (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 Keep. pschemp | talk 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mykonos (restaurant) now moved to Mykonos restaurant assassinations[edit]

The restourant is not notable, aside from one incident. Aside from the incident article only tells us this restourant is in Berlin Germany. Wikipedia is NOT a news portal for indiscriminate information.

  • Delete --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the restaurant seems to have had notability thrust on it. The article might be profitably moved to something like Mykonos murders to make it clear that it really isn't just about a restaurant. Smerdis of Tlön 20:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as renamed. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as mentioned above. The murders seem more notable than the restaurant. Maybe a little more explanation of the lasting impact of the murders would be useful, too. --Elkman - (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per Smedis of Tlon. Capitalistroadster 00:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with or without renaming) or delete Ford's Theater, too. Monicasdude 04:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC). --[reply]
  • Keep and rename, I'd go for Mykonos restaurant assassinations. Very notable case in Germany, and important for European-Iranian relations. Lukas (T.|@) 09:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename but not to Mykonos murders which implies murders on the Greek island rather than a German restaurant but rather either per Lukas or Mykonos restaurant murders. Carlossuarez46 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude and Carlossuarez46. KI 21:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No vote. The article has been moved from Mykonos (restaurant) to Mykonos restaurant assassinations. --Tony Sidaway 22:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten_five[edit]

Unverifiable Nonsense of insufficent relevancy, even if it were true. MarcusGraly 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense mixed with attack. Fan1967 21:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as ňðň§əň§Ə --Krashlandon (e) 21:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It might be the best little wherehouse (sic) in Oakland, but it looks like original research or something made up in school one day. --Elkman - (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to whether it's a warehouse or a whorehouse, but either way it's garbage. Fan1967 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film And Politics Listserv[edit]

Delete Vanity page for a external e-mail list ArglebargleIV 20:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Cheng[edit]

Delete Add/vanity page San Saba 20:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable photographer per awards and display of work in the Smithsonian. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Must keep all articles on people named Cheng. j/k. Keep per Adrian Lamo. howcheng {chat} 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adrian. Advertising? If I need an expert underwater photographer, would I really look in Wikipedia for a list? Monicasdude 04:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity doesn't have to mean advertising.--Urthogie 13:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete
  1. Ok first, it's a clear autobio vanity page, see history for such gems as "accomplished cellist" etc.
  2. He certainly isn't notable beyond his photography, so at the very least either this or wetpixel should be deleted, preferably both.
  3. The link to the smithsonian seems to have expired, and I am removing it and mention of his smithsonian display from the article unless someone can get a cached version that mentions him. Even if the Smithsonian thing is true, that does not automatically make him notable. All he won was the "Animal Antics" category, and it seems like a ton of amateur photographers got their photos into the smithsonian all at once through this contest. Do they all deserve articles?
  4. Of course note that besides this, ALL his media coverage has come from no serious publication or entity viz a viz art or technology, but rather from hobbyist/enthusaist magazines. From WP:BIO: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." This has not been shown to be the case. Someday he may be notable but now he is just a photography fanboy with forum fanboys.
  5. He fails the google test with only 683 hits, searching for +"Eric Cheng" +photography (to avoid other Eric Chengs) -"he has authored many webjournals" (to avoid mirros of WP) -site:wetpixel.com -site:echeng.com (to avoid his own sites). This WP article ranks then ranks second. Dsol 11:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with wetpixel--Urthogie 13:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page. The person who cares about it is Eric Cheng.

  • Comment: Sorry, my vote stands. As a photographer, I adjudge this person putatively notable in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, and in light of evidence supporting notability. I agree it needs some cleanup, and that Wetpixel may be worth deleting. ((sofixit)) : ). — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due and duly respectful deference to your judgement as a photographer, what serious piece of evidence do you find convincing in establishing Cheng's notability? The fact that his shots of "animal antics" won an amateur photography contest that got his stuff up for a short time in the smithsonian along with many others? Or maybe his popularity in web forums? Dsol 21:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, his site is the #3 google hit for "underwater digital" [33]. Kappa 11:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get #10 following that link. Dsol 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn as AFD is not the appropriate place for listing this. --Gurubrahma 07:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis - World No. 1 ranked Women[edit]

Delete this redirection since it doesn't follow WP:NAME—as discussed in Talk:List of ATP number 1 ranked players—and nothings points there (except for a Talk page). rbonvall 20:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: maybe a WP:PROD would have been more appropiate for this case. I didn't know about that until now. rbonvall 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Redirects for deletion is at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion and this should be listed there instead. AfD and PROD is for articles, not redirects. -- JLaTondre 01:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't know about RfD either. Please dismiss this nomination. rbonvall 02:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best On Travel Network, Inc[edit]

Sounds like advertising to me. Originally contained links to various services offered by the company, but they were removed by the author with the prod tag. Fightindaman 17:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The entry has been updated to conform to the Wikipedia standards.I used the Wikipedia entry of Hotels.com, Travel Dynamics International & TripAdvisor--among others--as points of reference. Hopefully these changes will satisfy Wikipedia, as well as, it's vigilant users. --Neuralstate 18:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:But this still doesn't demonstrate that it's notable. Bestonbahamas.com has an Alexa ranking of 490,365 (vs. Hotels.com at 792). Fightindaman 19:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:And Travel Dynamics International has an Alexa rating of 808,354 vs Carnival Cruise Lines of 5,434. So what's your point?
      • Comment:808,354 doesn't sound notable enough for a page either, but that does nothing to demonstrate the notability of this company. Fightindaman 19:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:Actually it does. It demonstrates that your initial use of Alexa as a measurement of relevance and notability for entries within Wikipedia is flawed. Furthermore, it demonstrates that even an apples to apples comparisons of websites--which your comparison was not— should not be the standard bearer for admittance or deletion in Wikipedia.--Neuralstate 19:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Stifle 01:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Articles on rumour and maybe are not up to WP:Verfiability. If someone somewhere has published this speculation in a reliable source, then things are different. -Splashtalk 01:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Society, Order of the Crown and Dagger[edit]

no verifiable citations; at best this is original research Tom Harrison Talk 21:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inexperienced in this community, but please review the following article for additional information on the Sevens: http://www.dogstreetjournal.com/story/2049 Andrew Costello (atcost@DELETECAPSwm.edu)

  • Delete. Secret societies are inherently unverifiable. Stifle 01:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. pschemp | talk 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chadians[edit]

No content other than the names of famous Chadians. There is already a category for Chadian people, with three subcategories. KI 21:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since redlinks cause new article creation. Also there is a precedent for this, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian photographers and others. Punkmorten 21:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft.--Isotope23 21:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Punkmorten 21:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because there's no content! KI 22:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does contain many links, so I don't understand your notion... I added some context though. Punkmorten 22:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten by Punkmorten. Shows we have more work to do on our Chad biographies by the look of things. Capitalistroadster 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 22:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added quite a lot of the names to the article, and I don't understand what's the problem with the article. It's very common to have lists of people by nationality; we have about a hundred of them, covering almost all countries and main people (see List of people by nationality). And the people in the categories cover only a fraction of famous Chadians; the list is needed to at least name them, for when hopefully I or others will have enough material to build the distinct biographies. Aldux 00:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep You can do things with lists which just aint possible with Categories. Jcuk 00:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Punkmorten et al that a page such as this will stimulate the creation of articles that would otherwise be ignored. Keresaspa 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lists and categories have different purposes. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 03:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SM-Networks[edit]

A non-notable group of gentlemen playing a game (aka "game crew"). De-proded sans comment. Weregerbil 22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable group. Gaming clans are almost always non-notable. —Wrathchild (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

With regards to very new contributors, Wikipedia welcomes with opens arms, however these discussion have two parts:

  • The "discovery" phase, in which evidence is found and presented, and
  • The "waffle" phase, in which the relevence of the evidence is debated.

While everyone's "facts" are equal, the presumption is that more experianced wikipedians will be better able to judge how a particular article "fits" into wikipedia. Thus they are often given greater weight in waffling. In this discussion there was no new evidence presented, and the guideline for inclusions of websites was mentioned explicitly several times. I thank everyone for taking the time to contribute.
brenneman{T}{L} 06:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadaka.net[edit]

This article was de-prodded without comment. Initially prodded as appears to fail WP:WEB. James084 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete fails to meet any guideline setforth in WP:WEB as far as I'm concerned └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, at all. Not even barely. --Dogbreathcanada 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following was left on Talk:Canadaka.net by PeterFinn. I am reposting here as it is only fair to have the original submitters comments listed. James084 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a US citizen and California resident who joined Canadaka.net as a member about a year ago. I've since donated US$100 to help keep the site running. It is not a pay-per-view site and the owner, Trevor May, is subsidizing the site as a labor of love. I posted the site when someone mentioned it was not on Wiki and the fact that the site has been noted on CBC & CTV as having a measurable influence on the recent election and the Gomery affair (discussion of the affair was banned in Canada but this site stood up for free speech by posting links to US sites where content could be found). I'll be happy to learn about Wikifying the page and I will take responsibility for it. But I will also stand by my premise that not only is the site notable (at least in Canada) it is acknowledged as having an influence outside of the site itself. Delete the item if you must, but the site will continue to grow and it will play a greater role in the next issues facing Canada: a new defence policy, oil sands, US trade, and Parliamentary and Quebec Separatism elections.

Visit the site and check out the forums before making a decision. It is a serious site and the discussions are quite real. Thanks, Peter.

  • Keep The site has been featured on CTV and radio stations across Canada. One of the largest Canadian forums on the internet. If these sites can be on Wiki surely Canadaka.net can. Vive_le_Canada, Canadian Democratic Movement, Rabble. Also someone is going around Wiki imposing as me with the username "TrevorMay". This is NOT the Trevor that owns Canadaka.net. I have emailed wikipedia to see if they can do something about this person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaka (talk • contribs)
  • Keep For all of the above stated reasons. Please ignore the trolls and imposters. TrevorMay 00:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--The man with one red shoe 16:24, 4 March 2006 (PST)

  • Delete This place sux, if you question the liberal's you won't last a week JackassCKA 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too bad, then go make your own site TrevorMay 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Clearly CKA qualifies due to the extensive CTV coverage, therefore you must keep it. TrevorMay 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you are going to say that, your the admin. JackassCKA
    • Of course you are going to say it sucks, you are banned for disruptive behavior and gay bashing. TrevorMay 01:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of the most important sites in Canada IceOwl 06:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I use this site as much as anyone but it certainly isn't "notable" Being listed on here is nothing more then website promotion.DerbyX 07:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who brought this entry back? It was deleted a few hours ago.JackassCKA 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WEB used to contain a criterion stating that a website was notable if its Alexa ranking was 100,000 or better. CanadaKA and Rabble would both meet that criterion; Vive wouldn't, but it gets over on its association with Mel Hurtig, Robin Mathews and Duncan Cameron. But the 100K thing isn't listed as a criterion anymore. So we look at media citations — the claimed CTV and radio citations do seem to pan out, from what I can tell, and Alexa's webtraffic graph shows a massive spike in per-day page hits in late February, which clearly suggests some kind of media coverage happened around that time. (Though I would appreciate a few more verified coverage links, if possible.) So, while the sockpuppets swarming around this do give me pause, I'm willing to call it a cautious keep, although it does need some cleanup to conform to Wikipedia style, and I do reserve the right to change my mind if people don't start behaving. (And as for Canadian Democratic Movement, while it looks like an interesting site I'm not sure how, if at all, it meets any of Wikipedia's criteria. Of the four sites that have been named, it's the one for which I'm least able to see a legitimate notability claim.) Bearcat 07:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article reads as a promotional piece and does not provide any citations for claims such as ”one of the largest”. If it’s claims to notability could be properly cited, I might change my vote. As it stands, I see nothing to warrant an article for this. —GrantNeufeld 10:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable and well publicized site which meets all wiki guidelines. -QBC 04:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you even bother to read the WP:WEB guidelines?, Not only does it not meet "all" the wiki guidelines. It doesn't meet ANY JackassCKA 05:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the best sites on the web! -Jaime Souviens 04:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't even care that it doesnt meet any of your stupid criteria, It's the best site so keep it.*lily* 04:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. pschemp | talk 20:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Taiga[edit]

Found while cleaning out speedies. Listing as a courtesy, no vote Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for posting the speedy vote. I should have made it a regular. But I stand by what I think: This does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO. vote for deletion Recon0 22:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Recon0 asked, "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" The answer is yes. First, as I wrote in the article, he created three works that are National treasures of Japan. Second, the article is part of the Missing Articles project, and I believe the reason is that there is an article on him in 1911 Britannica. Third, there is an article on the Japanese Wikipedia. Finally, a prestigious national museum and a historically prominent temple complex, as well as a Nobel-prize-winning author have collected his works. I'm confident that this dispels doubts about his lasting contribution to art. Fg2 22:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Recon0, please do at least minimal research before tagging articles for deletion. A very quick Google search brings up an article on this artist in the Encyclopædia Britannica. I have also found a fourty-six page article, "Ike Taiga: A Biographical Study", by Melinda Takeuchi, in the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1983, p. 141-186, and much more. u p p l a n d 22:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Fg2 and Uppland. Neier 23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand/source. Has an article on Grove art Online as well as Britannica so notable artist with verifiable material available. Capitalistroadster 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first google search result was from the Encyclopedia Britannica. And I for one think that if it can make it into that encyclopedia, it has a place here. Calicore 02:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Totally notable.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why did this come up for deletion?Harrypotter 15:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Its on http://ja.wikipedia.org, and should be here and expanded.Naerhu 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long lane[edit]

Delete as street is not notable, an instruction manual, perhaps vanity, generally not appropriate for Wikipedia Softgrow 22:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article completely smacks of original research, and a Google search for "Long Lane Racing Authority" turned up nothing. (Big surprise.) Maybe the car crash picture could be used for an article about why drag racing is unsafe, though. --Elkman - (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Streets are not notable. The map is probably a copyvio. Stifle 01:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 09:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Islamic jurists[edit]

After an AfD less than two weeks ago, it was decided that something needed to be done about the Muslim lists. List of Muslims on February 24 took over as, essentially, the table of contents for those lists. This article, as well as the ones that follow, have been excluded from the re-organization as they all have been replaced with or merged into different articles. They, thus, should be offered for deletion (see List of Muslims/Proposed Organization A for more). joturner 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. joturner 22:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can be swayed to Merge or Redirect on some of them if someone brings the idea up. joturner 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the list is very small and can be easily held in another list. Jedi6 23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List of Muslim Islamic jurists to Ulema because the title is incorrect and claims to be a subpage of a redirected page - Muslim Islamic jurists which points to Ulema anyway. Correct title should have been List of Islamic jurists, perhaps User:Striver overdid the Islamicness a bit there.
Merge and Redirect Muslim businessmen and Muslim scientists to the replacement articles.
Delete Muslim leaders because it is a frivolous combination of notable people, but for the record Saddam Hussain was a secular dictator, Benazir Bhutto leads a secular-based socialist party and Osama bin Laden has never held elected or unelected office (except in his own grouping). The only two who could realistically be described as leaders would be Khomeini and Husayn ibn Ali.
Keep and expand Muslim professions to include professions specific to Islam - Ulema/Imam, Qadi/Jurisconsult, Caliph, Emir, Muezzin etc but not Sufis because it's the title of a follower of a particular style of Islam - otherwise would need to list Shia and Sunni as professions too. Also remove Sahaba because these were Companions of the Prophet Muhammad and not an actual profession and List of Muslim Dynasties as it is completely inappropriate. Green Giant 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought about that approach for Muslim professions; that may be a good idea. joturner 03:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & merge anything unique to a list created as proposed by Green Giant; if kept, the title needs changing as most people would assume that Islamic jurists would be Muslim having the double title is redundant like List of Jewish Rabbis Carlossuarez46 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 01:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet GameCube[edit]

Not notable enough (see Wikipedia:Notability (websites)). Thorpe | talk 22:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable enough[34]. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wangfoo 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Adrian. Stifle 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, establishes notability by staff and accolades. Kappa 11:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TAKEN TO RfD. -Splashtalk 01:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John 6[edit]

redlinks work a lot better than redirects for the purposes of the ((Chapters in the Gospel of John)) box Andrew c 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — invalid AfD criteria. — RJH 16:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single chapter of the Bible is not notable. Logophile 13:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed wrongly - WP:RFD is down the hall, second door on the right. Stifle 01:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please close the debate, I accidentally listed a redirect here. Thanks!--Andrew c 07:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by many editors as CSD G4 (Recreation of deleted content) --lightdarkness (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UniversityNotes[edit]

88 Googles, no Alexa rank, I suggest this fails [{WP:WEB]] and quite likely WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 23:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott ABC Nicholson[edit]

Looks like complete bollocks to me - can we post a big notice saying we've passed the million mark so this lunacy stops? Just zis Guy you know? 23:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedied by moi as nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. pschemp | talk 20:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Box (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete because no longer needed, Black box is now a disambiguation page treesmill 23:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom (Talk) 00:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Marley Resort and Spa[edit]

"Opening soon" = "Not open yet" = speculation = WP:NOT (a crystal ball). Another millionth article contender? Just zis Guy you know? 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its an empty article. Jedi6 00:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. pschemp | talk 20:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kezia[edit]

A debut album? Great! Come back when it's sold some. Just zis Guy you know? 23:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree. The band appears to have a long list of albums (that aren't full length), and a google search of Kezia "protest the hero" returns nearly 1000 hits, while leaving the quotes off generates close to 10,000. This appears to be a legitimate album from a known group. Having said that, the article probably needs a NPOV rewrite. Not my leg 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The album sold 3500 to 4000 units in its first month link, which was September 2005. The band has released two music videos, one of which has recieved extensive airplay on the Much Music family of television channels. As for the NPOV, I simply transfered the Kezia section from the main Protest the Hero site to its own article because it was fairly large and didn't really belong on the Protest the Hero article site. The Story Line section was not written by myself. It should be noted that I am the primary authour of the Protest the Hero article however. --Bouyeeze 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment A wholesale copy from their website may constitute a Copyvio. I don't know though, so someone else may want to comment, or change the article. Not my leg 00:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment on above When I said I transfered the Kezia section from the main Protest the Hero site, I meant its wikipedia article site (Protest the Hero). Sorry for the confusion. --Bouyeeze 02:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment My mistake, I probably misread it. Obviously not copyvio if it cam from this site. Not my leg 17:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Never heard of them myself, but they appear to be a notable band, and the album really does exist, based on web searches (unlike a lot of articles about "planned" albums or movies which are basically vaporware). Fan1967 00:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a notable album in Canada. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Their full-length Kezia has not yet been released in the USA, but they have begun touring there. They also are planning a UK tour--Bouyeeze 00:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Protest the Hero are an amazing band and this is their upcoming album I have just bought tickets to see them support Everytime I Die In the UK, I am confused as to why keeping this article is being debated!?
  • Comment I'm going to go ahead and remove the article deletion tag for Kezia since there is overwhelming support for keeping it. I'm going to remove it in about 6 hours in case there is any objection to me doing it. --Bouyeeze 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft Emulation[edit]

Original research. Non-notable fancruft. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: While an article about this subject might be useful - the current article is nothing more than poorly written original research. All four external links in the article are broken. --Hetar 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Jedi6 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as very narrative-style original research, would require a rewrite if we were to have an article on this anyway. -- Mithent 00:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very poorly written and original research. btw we might want to consider what should happen if it returns in a better style, as it's about something not allowed by blizzard. Boneyard 14:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --TheKoG 15:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikibooks, compelling reading, but wholly unencyclopedic. Ewlyahoocom 18:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My bad. I'll recreate with more encyclopedic wording. Zite 07:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a good article, it needs improving but it's a start —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XSpaceyx (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 REDIRECT to Sustainable competitive advantage, just to avoid the double redirect. -Splashtalk 01:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ocean Strategy[edit]

non-notable Grocer 00:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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