< March 15 March 17 >

Purge server cache

March 16[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 transwiki. -- King of Hearts talk 02:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Simpsons quotes[edit]

It was de-PRODded, so I'm listing it here. This article's content should all be in the Wikiquote q:The Simpsons article. I vote delete and redirect to The Simpsons.--ragesoss 18:06, 16 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. kingboyk 10:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital War[edit]

Is this an article about the new breed of electronic warfare? No, rather a discontinued webcomic, found here. The Alexa rank is is over 1 million but it doesn't mean much because this comic hasn't been updated for a year. Is this comic notable? Are there respectable sources for this? I don't think so, it just looks like any other comic genesis comic. - Hahnchen 23:48, 15 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. I'm willing to consider userfying on request. kingboyk 10:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dock boys[edit]

A webcomic, found here. The majority of the article was written by User:Dockboys, who is the webcomic artist Scott Drummond. Alexa gives no data for this website. Various searches on Google bring up little, "Dock boys" webcomic brings 60 links and "Dock boys" Scott Drummond brings up 20 links. The only hint of notability is that it's printed in a university newspaper, I do not believe this is a marker of notability, I do not think the cartoon strip in my university paper is notable and it's the same for this. - Hahnchen 23:55, 15 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fü Productions[edit]

A webcomic found here. It has been previously deleted a year ago at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fü Productions as non notable, and has now been recreated by what I'm guessing to be the same user, User:JaceSoro. Looking on Google for "Fu Productions" brings up nothing as all the links are irrelevent. What is notable about this webcomic? What takes this website beyond the infinite sea of webcomics out there? I can't find anything. - Hahnchen 23:59, 15 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deo (comic)[edit]

A webcomic found on the free webcomic webhost Comic Genesis, here. Alexa makes no mention of it in Comic Genesis' stats. A Google search for "deo webcomic" (without quotes) brings back 170 links. But when you look at them, the majority is nothing to do with the webcomic. Is there anything notable about this website? Are there any good sources about this website? - Hahnchen 23:55, 15 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. There's no consensus to keep, but something of a split between a merge and a delete. There's not much to merge, and User:Irishpunktom has replaced the article with categorisation (see e.g. [2]). I can't close as a merge and delete because of GFDL issues. I shall therefore, with the new category scheme and the comments about not watering down the Observer article in mind, close as delete. That's not to say an interested editor can't add a mention to the Observer article, but honestly I don't see anything worth saving. kingboyk 11:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observer's 50 funniest[edit]

This article seems completely pointless. At the moment, it's just a couple of links to a fairly old, obscure list, which anyone could find with a quick google search. I can't see how it could be improved either, beyond regurgitating the list, which would be pointless and copyright infringement. If people want to mention this list in the articles of the people who were in the list, why not just link to the list? Rather than linking to a couple of sentences about it. Sammysam 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I'll just do it! --Irishpunktom\talk 10:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
or merge Veej 13:52, 17 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 00:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samurang[edit]

This was speedily deleted during a terminated AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samurang. WP:DRV opted to overturn that decision, with some concerns over whether this was simply very non-NPOV or actually an attack — see here. It comes back for a full consideration by AfD. -Splashtalk 00:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It is true that being wrongly believed by huge numbers of people is a kind of notability, and there may be something in this but you really have to present it properly or not at all, its not the same as someone creating a really badly written article about "Pepsi" which you can easily label as keep & cleanup. Each case has to be judged on its merits, given the history of this article and the niche interest it holds, I don't see any justification to keep it unless someone who knows what they're talking about has a go at it. We must be very careful not to build a slanted record of history here - one man's biased, nationalist rhetoric becomes an 8th-graders class project. In cases such as this a very high threshold of verifiability must be seen to be crossed. Deizio 01:24, 16 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 deletion. RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State of DAH[edit]

Article about a Micronation created 2 days ago in a web forum. Creator removed prod tag with no discussion. Would seem to fail WP:V, having no reliable sources to cite with any information about this micronation. Also probably self promotional, see WP:NOT. W.marsh 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under what criteria exactly, if it's so clear cut? --W.marsh 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
consider WP:SNOW Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:51, 16 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.  (aeropagitica)  23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SamBakZa[edit]

Website fails WP:WEB with no concrete assertion of notability. "Most popular part of the site" appears from the article to consist at present of two Flash animations. Delete. Hynca-Hooley 00:37, 16 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 Portland Public Schools, Oregon. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portland School District[edit]

Delete because there is already an article on Portland, Oregon's School District (Portland Public Schools, Oregon) Tv145033 00:50, 16 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books of Histories of Thailand[edit]

Delete. Page is awkwardly titled and hard to find, and lists only a few resources. Entire contents of this page have been incorporated into appropriate pages under History of Thailand -- see Talk:Books_of_Histories_of_Thailand for details about where. Archivizt 01:17, 16 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 17:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinface[edit]

Neologism. Usage as defined in the article appears to be limited to one Web site.[7] --phh 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The editor who wrote this article has made other dubious edits ([8], [9]) referencing subjects on losethegame.com, the website mentioned above, suggesting that the attempt to "mainstream" the Chinface appellation is part of an ongoing violation of WP:SPAM. --phh 15:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Please understand that I am not trying to spam my website. My website is about things I am interested in. If I find that something I believe to be notable, such as chinface, is not on Wikipedia, I will add it. If I have already written about it on my website, then I will link to it in an attempt to provide more information. I can assure you that my website does not make me any money. Kernow 20:30, 19 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. Harro5 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient romes population[edit]

As the author states on the talk page, this is pure speculation about figures. It is therefore obviously original research, but proposed deletion would be contested, so here we are. Harro5 01:32, 16 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. The article lacked context and content, and since WP:NOT a crystal ball, the weak assertion of notability was void. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaqueline_Thompson[edit]

Delete. I don't think this person exists. Regardless, the scant article of this person was completely false. Damiel 01:44, 16 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. W.marsh 04:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Chicoine[edit]

Delete. POV fork. 90% of this article is a direct copy from another article (Francis Schuckardt) except that in this article only the negative accussations against Francis Schuckardt are included with the omission of any answers to the accussations - an obvious backdoor attempt around Wiki policy and guidelines. In addition, 90% of this article is not about Chicoine, but about Francis Schuckardt. Lastly, Chicoine is not a significant enough figure to have his own page. Athanasius303 01:45, 16 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. I strongly suggest using ((PROD)) for this. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ajakkala[edit]

Hi - non-notable, unsourced one-liner. Rama's Arrow 02:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 02:06, 16 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most violent James Bond movies[edit]

Fancruft at best. One source and very very debatable. Just kind of a ridiculous article all around. Useless to Wikipedia. K1Bond007 02:17, 16 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 19:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tritithes[edit]

Delete. No Google hits for this article, probably fan fiction. BryanG 02:18, 16 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 19:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Neo Angelus Revolution[edit]

I would have prod'ed this but I thought it was so special everyone should see it. Only wiki-clones on google [11] and nothing in google news. [12] Ohh... Delete since I'm part of the illuminati and I must suppress my enemies... err.. did I type that out loud? ---J.Smith 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:' This has been archived for my amusement. ---J.Smith 23:23, 16 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 — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalopteryx[edit]

Incomplete nomination by 68.32.34.152. Reason unknown. Probably a test.


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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  23:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Existence[edit]

Cruft; written in UE tone.--Zxcvbnm 03:20, 16 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 well, it ain't delete. I assume one of the "oooh! Rewrite!" champions will be lending a hand when the time comes to improve this article ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recency principle[edit]

A concept which appears to be not very notable, not yet anyway. It was listed on a blog by an academic, but the blog is only 2 years old, and the word doesn't seem to have been published? A google search gives 160 hits but most of these pertain to a computer programming concept.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:23, 16 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.  (aeropagitica)  23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Center of Irvine[edit]

Nn community centre. Does not explain how it is notable (size or history), apart from offering religious counselling and the like.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:26, 16 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 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snatch-22[edit]

Appears to be nn slang. 900 google hits, but they are basically all for a music group of the same name.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:17, 16 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 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dataway[edit]

Advertisement for an internet security firm that doesn't show any particular notability. Delete. DMG413 03:32, 16 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 so keep. the wub "?!" 12:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era[edit]

Someone asked why this particular time is relevant. It is relevant since Muhamamd is a very notable name. The list could be named "list of non-Muslims who meet Muhamamd", but that would excluded people who meet the Muslims that fleed to ethiopia. Those people where very prominent, the first Caliph was one of them, and another would become Muhmmads wife. So the list is expaned to include non-Muslims that where involved in such a notable situations. Remeber, people from 1400 years ago are not remebered if they where non-notable, specialy not non-Muslims in Muslim books. And c'mon, we have List of United States Presidents by height order. List name is bad, article is valid, verifiable and notable.--Striver 23:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are cited in the article of the people, no need to clogg this article by repeating them. However, if you dissagre, it can be arranged.--Striver 01:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please consider that the events during Muhammads time are very notable to both Muslims and non-Muslim scholars of Islam, and also consider List of US Presidents by height order.--Striver 23:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, the list is not "to broad to be usefull", Muhammad did'nt live for more than a few years after conquering the Arabian penisula, so most people in the list are Arabs that didnt became Muslims during Muhammads time.--Striver 23:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are that period and people documented? Where they engaged in wars? Did they shape the life of 1 000 000 000 people? Where they involved in the unification of the Islamic empire? Do we have a List of Joseph Smith companions? We do have a list of Sahaba. The people in the article are notble, each have their own article. We need somewhere where we can access all of them, in the same way we have a list to access all Sahaba. Its two sides of the same coin. People that lived during Muhammads time. The Muslims are called Sahaba, and there is a list of them. This is a list of the non-Muslims. --Striver 15:07, 19 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 and userfy content.  (aeropagitica)  23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eoghan Beecher[edit]

Not particularly notable Irish student and political activist. 72 unique Google hits. Delete. DMG413 03:50, 16 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, albeit with many favouring a merger. This closure does not prevent or preclude merging if a better article would be the product. kingboyk 09:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Ali[edit]

  • Seems like you made that one up. Wikipedia does have family trees. I asked about it on the Village Pump about a month ago in my own vain attempt to get this deleted. Seems like family trees are acceptable. Though non-notable family trees (which this is not, Ali is certainly a notable figure) may be deleted under non-notability. I will see if I can find the village pump link. Pepsidrinka 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, I didn't make it up, thank you - follow the link and you'll find " Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Relatively unimportant people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project." Esquizombi 04:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ali clearly qualifies for a biography article, but I don't read that policy as saying that genealogical entries are OK for the famous. I posted on the talk page seeking clarification. Esquizombi 07:02, 16 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 yes! We have no consensus / we have no consensus today! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan[edit]

See bottom half of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion and also this:

--Striver 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jihadunspun.net[edit]

has an Alexa ranking of 127,460 [21]--Striver 15:10, 19 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 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replicator Art[edit]

This is a neologism. Google (I know, I know, not the end-all be-all, but bear with me) yields fewer than 200 hits, many of which seem to be related to port replicator art, which is apparently an unrelated computer term. (See that first hit to see what I'm talking about.) Delete.


This is all true, but what is wrong with being a Neologism? How does anything get into language? How do we evolve without starting something new? The largest and most successful broadsheet in Australia (I know, I know) thought it worthy of page 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Lorax (talk • contribs)


Alright we give in, point taken, say no more. Can it be transwikied to wiktionary? It appeared in a newspaper, does that count as print or does it have to be a book? And how do you do it? —This unsigned comment was added by Peter Lorax (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. kingboyk 05:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Luk[edit]

currently no content. Previous edit was nonsense. Zen611 04:53, 16 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. W.marsh 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of Sahaba becoming muslims[edit]

See Identity of first male Muslim, then read this passage that shows how much importance Muslims attach on the Timing of Sahaba becoming muslims:


Twelve Ranks of the Companions

The Companions were divided into twelve ranks by the scholars. This division was made according to the chronological order and some groups are also included in others. It was accepted by the majority of scholars:

1. The four Rightly-Guided Caliphs, namely Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, and the rest of the ten to whom Paradise was promised while alive. They are Zubair bin Al-Awwam, Abu Ubaidah bin Al-Jarrah, Abdur-Rahman bin Awf, Talha bin Ubaidullah, Sa‘d bin Abi Waqqas and Saeed bin Zad, may Allah be pleased with them all.

2. Those who believed prior to Umar’s conversion and frequently gathered together secretly in the House of Arqam to listen to Allah’s Messenger, upon him be Peace and Blessings.

3. Those who migrated to Abyssinia in the first hijrah (migration) for Allah's Sake.

4. The Helpers (Ansar) who were present at the first ceremony of taking the Oath of Allegiance to Allah’s Messsenger at Al-Aqaba.

5. The Helpers (Ansar) who took the Oath of Allegiance to the Messenger at Al-Aqaba, the following year.

6. The first Emigrants (Muhajireen) who joined Allah’s Messenger before his arrival in Madinah during the Hijrah (Emigration).

7. The Companions who participated in the Battle of Badr.

8. Those who emigrated to Madinah during the period between the Battle of Badr and the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.

9. The Companions who took the Oath of Allegiance to Allah’s Messenger under a tree during the expedition of Hudaybiyah.

10. Those who converted and emigrated to Madinah after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.

11. Those who became Muslims after the conquest of Makkah.

12. The children who saw Allah’s Messenger either during the Conquest of Makka or during the Farewell Pilgrimage, or in any other place and on different occasions.

According to this ranking, Khalid bin Al-Waleed would come in Rank 10, since he accepted Islam after the Truce of Hudaybiyah.

Source: http://www.swordofallah.com/html/companionshome.htm


As you see, this is a important topic to Muslims. The article needs better sourcing, not deletin. The sources can often be found in the article of the people. --Striver 15:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why is that a voting rationale? As you can see by the reasonable number of Delete votes in all his recents AfDs, these AfDs are warranted. Striver has created a large number of articles that have little to no information and questionable significance (although he has also made many beneficial articles). I commend Jersey Devil for questioning the importance of these articles and trying to root out the ones that aren't necessary. joturner 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remeber that this is going to be a big list, there are lots of Sahaba, and this list would dominate it. Ill also add some context right now.--Striver 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No can do, that is a Sunni ranking system. I only brought it to show that the topic of when they became Muslims is higly relevant to Muslims, Shi'a also view such a list as very important. The list needs time to grow and mature, not to be deleted. --Striver 02:20, 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 no consensus. Cyde Weys 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Skinner[edit]

Per Worldcat, one library owns the book listed. Very hard to search for other books by the same author as there is an American author named Jonathan Skinner who has written a ton of books on economic issues. Thatcher131 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps delete this page as NN and create a new article featuring the more academically known economist? Arbusto 04:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Yes, she did do a Widcombe church page, and she did the Skinner page, but I take it that these are matters she happens to know about. Since she also did this page Tota_pulchra_es, a page reflecting on Mary and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which is contrary to Baptist and other Protestant theology, so it is unlikely that she has POV issues, whereas there is systematic deletion of Christian related articles going on all over Wikipedia. I think it is one thing when there are two sides trying on the one hand to increase Christian content and on the other to delete it, but it's a pity if the contributions of someone who had no such intention, and was merely writing about something local to her, should be caught up in this. Uncle Davey (Talk) 12:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slowmover 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments. If you would like to strengthen the article by adding information that will independently establish (outside your own opinion) his importance, feel free to do so. Check the guidelines for help on verifiability and inclusion of biographies. Things like newspaper accounts of his lectures, book reviews (if he has written any) will help establish verifiability and notability. The AfD discussion runs for 5 days before closing, and if you have made significant improvement you can ask for a reconsideration. Thatcher131 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you added some articles he wrote. That is useful, but it would be more useful to list articles about him. Thatcher131 22:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sugarpie Honeybunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a possible sock puppet. First edit ever was to add 4 articles to the Skinner page and second edit was this vote. The user has not made a third edit. Arbusto 04:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be curious to know how an unsigned anonymous user with an IP address belonging to a German cable company would know this. Thatcher131 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That user was me, I could not sign in as I was on a school computer. I assure you that I have not created any sockpuppets. That would be a waste of time and no doubt someone would notice. Abbyemery 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you couldn't log in, but thanks for clarifying. Thatcher131 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I had signed in I would have been spotted by the teacher not doing the work that I was supposed to be doing, and I would not have been able to make the edit at all! Abbyemery 18:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are looking for evidence that other people beyond Skinner himself and possibly a small circle of parishoners and fans finds him insteresting enough to write about. If 2 people think he's important, then he probably isn't; if ten thousand people think he is important, he problably is. The dividing line is invisible and fuzzy. To help the wikipedia community evaluate specific people, we look for outside evidence. See below. Thatcher131 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence Lexis/Nexis search covering the past 12 months finds several columns written by Skinner for the Western Daily Press and some letters to the editor replying to him in one way or another. He takes on Richard Dawkins, who had just run a 2-part BBC special declaring that religion was immoral, and he defended tony Blair, who was criticized by the press for saying that God would judge the rightness of the Iraq invasion. Also a book review that thought Skinner's book proceeded from a logical fallacy and would only be convincing to the already convinced. (I can't link to Lexis/Nexis but I can provide the dates and page numbers; I don't know if the Western Daily Press has a web presence or not.) I have not voted yet, leaning toward keep but would like to know what others think in light of this Lexis/Nexis search. Based on the fact that he has published 50+ newspaper columns in addition to a column in the Evangelical Times, and because we have dozens of articles on the Expanded Universe (Star Wars), we can keep this one too. Thatcher131 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good evidence, hadn't seen that. I'd add and re-clarify that he writes for the Evangelical Times which has a circulation of about 40 000. I believe that he is therefore notable as a journalist. People disagree? Abbyemery 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice one Slowmover. But if you search, you'll find lots of reviews of the book (The Edge of Known Reality and Beyond) coming from independent reviewers/publications. Being a journalist is not notable, but being a notable journalist is something else altogether. Abbyemery 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh good grief, I missed the fact that "Evangelical Press" is the publisher of his book. So I don't find any independent reviews, just what appears to be his own site, the publisher's site, the sites of booksellers and some blogs.....Slowmover 20:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, it's me again, I'm a bit of a newbie to this and I'm just wondering: is the page kept purely on votes for delete or keep, despite the fact that a lot of the delete votes came in before evidence was displayed? Abbyemery 07:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Only one vote per person is allowed, but the decision is not made by the volume of votes (therefore, multiple votes by one person make no difference anyway). After 5 days, unless it looks like more time is required, an Admin will review the debate, decide if there was a consensus, and act on the consensus. This looks like no consensus to me (IMHO), so it's likely that this page will not be deleted. Slowmover 15:49, 22 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 Userfied.  (aeropagitica)  06:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bossi[edit]

Vanity page is an understatement. Zen611 05:02, 16 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 Sunni view of the Sahaba. I will do this by copy-paste; others can edit it at will. -Splashtalk 19:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioning the faults of the Sahaba (Sunni doctrine)[edit]

It has been claimed that the four doctrine articles are pov forks. They are not. Each one is a distinct doctrine. They are not "split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject", they are all Sunni doctrines, it is not different views. It is several different doctrines, not views. Just like the doctrine of trinity and virgin birth are not the same thing. Further, all articles are linkt to the Sunni view article, and the Sunni view article links to them, so there is no risk of not finding them. However, i do admit that the articles need heavy editing. That is a reason to edit, not to delete.--Striver 15:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, don't understand your comment here. POV forks should be amalgamated into original article and deleted. -- Samir (the scope) 23:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that contributors to these AFD discussions have treated each AFD individually , and different outcomes have resulted - some delete, some keep, some merge/improve - Striver's direct advocacy of voting by others for retention of all his AFD articles seems to me to suggest that :

  1. his articles generally warrant a high suspicion of WP:NPOV violation
  2. his (apparently passionate) votes and AFD comments should perhaps be accorded less weight
  3. his repetition of arguments that have been successfully and cogently countered in recent previous AFDs means those arguments should be afforded almost no weight at all.

These comments are NOT a reflection on Striver or the belief system with which he is aligned. I do note however that his stated goal is to present a specific POV. It seems to me therefore that this means :

  1. His contributions will need editing to ensure NPOV
  2. Some of the detailed material contributed will be better replaced by links to specialist web-sites - it is not Wiki's role to replicate all the information on the net, but provide concise summaries of key (notable) information (in this case to English-speaking readers) and links to appropriate specialist material

In summary, Wiki is not a soap-box, and Striver needs to be content with the consensus of the community on all his work. As it says at the bottom of every page : "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." :) WiKinny 18:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimbo Wales [26] [27]

There is a difference between writing pov and writnig about a pov. I dont appreciate incorrect accusations.--Striver 02:00, 25 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pet peeves[edit]

This list was removed from Pet peeve per consensus on that talk page given that it was unencylopedic and unverifiable. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:15, 16 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. -- King of Hearts talk 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred M. Donner[edit]

comment - This info should be put in the article - Uppland:hint, hint as you have done the research. -Oscar Arias 19:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 2006 (UTC)

am sorry for not knowing the importance of every single academic in existence he says, without even have bothered to click the link i provided in the article. --Striver 02:02, 17 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 University of British Columbia . -Splashtalk 19:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Hand (UBC)[edit]

Unverified, non-notable. Delete. Ardenn 05:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-North American this doesn't really figure any lower down the scale of importance or any higher up the scale of vanity than the Rose Bowl Hoax. However, the whole section of practical jokes seems to be very thinly populated with non-notable entries. 217.204.54.229 12:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The newspaper did not choose to post that photo and caption on their website, though the photo on the cover of the newspaper is clearly of the Black Hand's stunt, consistant with the photos on the page anf in the external links. --Nick Dillinger 20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to the page, as it currently stands in link [2], is to the archive for that issue. The cover for the paper's homepage has changed, but the link is now for that specific issue. It can be verified. Zoom in if neccessary--Nick Dillinger 22:26, 18 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 a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 21:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter George Oliver[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.
AfDs for this article:

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

Ziad Abdelnour[edit]

Asserts insufficient notability, and the article is also too POV even if arguably notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:55, 16 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 19:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power_numbers[edit]

Delete Duplicate of previously deleted Other names of large numbers Ben Standeven 05:57, 16 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 19:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Vines[edit]

It has been proposed that this article be deleted as it is not in line with Wikipedia's Articles of Notability. I disagree, as the articles mention that published authors or editors with a readership of more than 5,000 can be included in Wikipedia, and the Veritaserum site run by this individual has a much higher daily readership than 5,000. - Brethenbrother181, 23:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails to establish notability.

This page should not be deleted, as Matthew Vines is both notable and influential within the Harry Potter world. He has over 5000 viewees of his website a day, making him notable enough for appreciation on Wikipedia.


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PaGaLGuY.com[edit]

Virtually no encyclopedic content - may or may not be a notable website, but the article as it stands is basically advertising. Delete unless fixed. GTBacchus(talk) 06:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 53,000 members out of the six billion in the world is totally non-notable. Ten million members is considred notable at least. --Terence Ong 09:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53,000 on a first thought, with any numbers to say its not, is still notable for me. Remember, not every person in the world has internet access. So your six billion argument does not hold. If you can find me the number of how many Indians have internet access, I may reconsider. Right now, that seems like a fairly significant number. Pepsidrinka 18:20, 16 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, albeit with something approaching consensus for a merge. I'll close this debate as "keep" but the result should not be taken to mean that a merger cannot be performed. If a better article results from a merger be bold and merge. kingboyk 09:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended precaution[edit]

Weak keep or merge. It should be under the Arabic term, as that will be the one used in discussions of fiqh and sharia. I'm still not sure that this deserves a whole article, however -- it could easily be merged into Fiqh. IMHO, breakout articles are necessary when a topic gets too big or contentious in a main article. Creating them just to hold one para is a pointless waste of Wiki resources. Zora 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point - merge is fine with me too. Dlyons493 Talk 00:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource is wasted by being forced to spew out a list of 1000 arabic words, instead of a simple article for the word you wanted. --Striver 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Recommended precaution" is NOT the same as "Mustahabb", its "Ihtiyat Mustahabb". Its NOT "Recommended" + "precaution", its a term used by Shi'a marja when they are not sure of what they should say, its complemeted by "obligatory precation" as i have explained in the talk page. --Striver 00:54, 18 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 19:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snurgly[edit]

Delete neologism, slang with very few ghits in this context. Prod removed without comment--Porturology 06:20, 16 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. Ordinarily this defaults to keep, but I'll make the purely editorial (not administrative) decision to follow the recommendation of those proposing a move, since it appears to address the concerns of thos worried that we'll turn into a genealogical database. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Maymuna bint al-Harith[edit]

  • Your going to have to be more explicit than that. As you can clearly see, I have added my opinion on that article, so I clearly know that that article exists. And since all of these pages are on your watchlist already, you shall see that I have expressed to keep on the Ali article. So I am clearly judging each article on its merits. Yes, she has prominent half-sisters, but that is because of who THEY married, not because they were notable on their own. Now, unless you can convince me that every wife of the Prophet deserves a family tree, I'm convinced that she does not deserve one. Pepsidrinka 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility:

While 'Wikipedia is not a genealogy database', genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic.

Muhammads wives are royalty. We call them "mother of the belivers", other call it "queens". A queen is a royalty, specialy when she also is a notable Sahaba and have other prominent family mebers. --Striver 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of family trees and Family_tree_of_the_Eighteenth_dynasty_of_Egypt --Striver 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article sources are there, you just need to click the link. Many of this things are also so much common knoweldege that sourcing is not even necesary. If you know anything about that topic, that is. But sure, ill add a tag to the article--Striver 14:17, 19 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 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persons related to Qur'anic verses[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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Shaiba ibn Hashim[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility:

"While 'Wikipedia is not a genealogy database', genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic."

Just read Shaiba ibn Hashim, all of it, and then tell me he is not royalty or something comparable. --Striver 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of family trees and Family_tree_of_the_Eighteenth_dynasty_of_Egypt --Striver 02:23, 17 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 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Abu Bakr[edit]

--Striver 01:06, 17 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 with American Idol.  (aeropagitica)  23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol imitations[edit]

Unencyclopedic and superfluous. Delete or Merge with American Idol. Zpb52 06:46, 16 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 19:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abd-Allah ibn Rawahah[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 MERGE to Illinois Mennonite Conference. -Splashtalk 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lombard Mennonite Church[edit]

Delete Contested Prod. Local church with150 members--Porturology 06:50, 16 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 00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Obeidallah[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:Speedy deleted as advertising. --InShaneee 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barona Valley Ranch Resort and Casino[edit]

Delete Worst vanity/spam I have seen. Was deprodded by author user:baronavalleyranch--Porturology 06:58, 16 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 Allah Made Me Funny (comedy tour). kingboyk 09:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allah Made Me Funny[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 no consensus. Ordinarily this defaults to keep, but I'll make the purely editorial (not administrative) decision to follow the recommendation of those proposing a move, since it appears to address the concerns of thos worried that we'll turn into a genealogical database. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Aisha[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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tang[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Delete. Unverifiable Biography, possible hoax. Blue520 07:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note this users comment has been restored afer being deleted by User:24.44.52.11.--Blue520 06:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm changing my vote to BJAODN. After reading this article closely, it seems that every single sentence is fundamentally flawed in some way; I've never seen anything like this! GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpgImpart wisdom 06:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of outlandish claims and obvious problems with the article. They start at the third sentence: "He was almost immediately born as an orphan because of his parents's subsequent exposure and fall to the AIDs virus and the perpetual lacking of clean drinking water." There is exactly one confirmed case of AIDS from the 1950s, and it was stored plasma from someone in Sub-Saharan Africa in 1959. If he was born in 1959 this means his parents had to have both died from AIDS in 1959 or 1960, long before it was known to exist (the next single known case is in 1969.) This sentence is obviously false and I think much, if not all, of the rest of the article is too, and I won't waste my time checking every single claim in here. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpgImpart wisdom 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before nominating this article I did attempt to check the factuality as it stood at that point in time and a found it to be unverifiable from English language sources. The article has been extensively modified since and in no way did the article contain any information about Professor Chunhe Tang when I nominated it for AfD.--Blue520 08:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's interesting, because aside from claims from users with no contributions who just registered, I can't find an editor on here with any credibility that can verify this article. You got links? You've been researching you say. Give me books, give me bios. Don't give me crap that Second Lieutenant in the US Marine Corps has the power to discharge. TKE 23:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note at the time of posting there is/was no user User: MexicanDude500 the coment was posted by User:24.44.52.11.--Blue520 06:36, 18 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 19:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aralan[edit]

Hoax; does not exist. Maker of "religion" is on prod. Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 07:28, 16 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 00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tufail ibn Abdullah[edit]

How is this article related to a genealogy database? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If, because of the man's family tree wikilink, you think it's a genealogy database (which is irrelevant since this is the article, not the famliy tree), perhaps you'd like to take a look at all the fictional and non-fictional family trees in the List of family trees. - 67.9.142.225


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mess with MSN Messenger[edit]

Delete, gets an Alexa.com traffic rank of 9192, might be worth a link from the MSN Messenger article but also might not.-gadfium 07:41, 16 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/redirect. W.marsh 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 1 Gonzo[edit]

I don't know why this BBC programme was nominated for deletion, but the nominator forgot step 2. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 08:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:12, 17 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. W.marsh 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOLD[edit]

Not notable parsing SDK ... aa:talk 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around for mentions of this. I found the article via a random crawl. The only pages internally which link to this are self-referential. Looking through google finds some promotional links, and a large percentage of these are actually linked from one site. It does seem to be a non-notable SDK. My initial vote is to delete, of course. If somebody can come up with something showing that this is more notable, I'm open to it, naturally. ... aa:talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:12, 17 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 00:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qutaylah bint Abd al-Uzza[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 speedy delete by User:Elf-friend — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Byrd Civil War[edit]

POV Placeholder for Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief) Waya sahoni 07:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


delete - POV placeholder for Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief). Waya sahoni 07:47, 16 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 06:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_18_Cup_for_Poker[edit]

This article is about a group of friends weekly low-limit poker game, and as such I believe it's just a vanity page. Bjayakody

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ordinarily this defaults to keep, but I'll make the purely editorial (not administrative) decision to follow the recommendation of those proposing a move, since it appears to address the concerns of thos worried that we'll turn into a genealogical database. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Zubayr ibn al-Awwam[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 no consenusus. Mailer Diablo 17:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zayd ibn Umar[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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist League Internationalist[edit]

Delete This is an extremely minor subject. It is unlikely to be expanded beyond its current state as a minute stub. It has not been significantly edited since its creation in August 2004. --metzerly 08:05, 16 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 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sa'id ibn Zayd[edit]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mughira ibn Abd Ilah[edit]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leninist-Trotskyist Tendency[edit]

Delete Non-wikified article with no sources (thus violating WP:V) and factual errors. It has not been updated since November 2005. Content fork of United Secretariat of the Fourth International. --metzerly 08:30, 16 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 17:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Aoun - A Lebanese Perspective[edit]

Apparently intended to be a POV fork of Michel Aoun, which is currently protected due to disputes. PROD contested by author. Sandstein 08:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to Sandstein: Dear Sandstein, Thanks for your concern. I appreciate your initiative to settle this issue in a fair manner that abides by Wikipedia's regulations.
In order to give you a first flavor about the issues at stake, I would like to refer you to the following website that shows the result of a poll undertaken during the coming week and targeting around 100,000 Lebanese citizens (Sample representing 3% of the WHOLE LEBANESE POPULATION).
PLEASE CHECK THIS WEBSITE:
http://lebanonvoting.com/index.php?vote=4
Then, I would suggest that you read the biased article developped by AladdinSE that totally contradicts the Lebanese opinion reflected by this poll, and many other polls that reflect the opinion of the majority of the Lebanese people.
It is not acceptable to delete the Lebanese version and to retain and protect the Syrian NEGATIVE AND BIASED version developed by AladdinSE.
I would propose that you APPEND this article along with the Syrian version of AladdinSE, as a starting point for discussion. We could afterwards discuss every detail, in order to reach some common understanding, and develop TOGETHER a unified version characterized by historical objectivity.
Thanks for your cooperation and understanding,
Fares_S
Hello, Fares_S. It may well be that the present version of Michel Aoun does not reflect the view of a majority of Lebanese. However, this is not important here.
First, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, not from a Lebanese (or Syrian, or Swiss, or American...) point of view. So what all of you should do is work on a version of the article Michel Aoun that fairly presents all points of view, for example like "Lebanese think that he did X, while Syrians think that he did Y".
Second, this debate is not about the content of the article Michel Aoun. It is about whether the article Michel Aoun - A Lebanese Perspective should be kept. Wikipedia policy is clear here: It is a POV Fork and must be deleted for this alone. It does not matter if it is the best thing ever written on Wikipedia. Take what's good about it and use it to make Michel Aoun better.
Best regards, Sandstein 05:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I urge administrators to take action against blatant Sock puppetry used to push bias and POVs in Lebanese-relatred articles as well as to influence this vote.--AladdinSE 00:25, 22 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 - nomination effectively withdrawn. Proto||type 09:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors to the United Nations[edit]

Wonderful, useful, nicely formatted.... and unmaintainable. Wikipedia is not an almanac. I'm racking my brain for some place where this nice list could be kept... any ideas? If not, it would have to go, would it not? It will slowly rot... Herostratus 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on the membership of the U.S. House of Representatives with 435 members and manage to keep articles on every member, as well as an accurate list of every member, so I do not see how keeping track of an international body of less than 200 people should be more difficult. I came to Wikipedia looking for this list, and it wasn't there, so several months later I decided to spend a few hours tonight coding it myself.
Even then, the United Nations clearly updates the list of ambassadors on their own periodically, and, with each update, marks the latest changes in membership. Daniel Bush 08:42, 16 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 17:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni view of the Sahaba[edit]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shia view of the Sahaba[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. JIP | Talk 06:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divei Ilai[edit]

Delete no assertion of notability. the Talmud is 1000's of pages long. this is one incredibly tiny piece. It's not clear why the author has chosen it for inclusion into wikipedia. I attempted to contact the author for an explanation of significance, but got no answer. Disclosure: I am very familiar with the Talmud and therefore my opinion is well-informed. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 12:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 08:32, 16 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 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotherapy[edit]

Vanity advertisement for original research. The UK press did not "describe" the subject; it quoted the author's description.

For Clarity, the term 'A New kind of Environmentalism' was used by the author of the article 'The Force of nature' Hugh Wilson for The Independent newspaper on 29.08.05. to describe the work of some Ecotherapists - myself included & named. Graham Game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.2 (talk • contribs)

This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 06:35, 23 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 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girlsoutwest.com[edit]

Porn site ad, possibly a search optimization attempt. No indication of significance.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 18:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Odyssey[edit]

Delete The last time this was put up for deletion there was no consensus. I feel it deserves another nomination. It is clearly not notable enough as the ship in question only appeared very briefly in one episode. Philip Stevens 09:33, 16 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 06:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightbox.com[edit]

Contested ((prod)) brought here for consensus. Contributor who removed the prod template replaced the content with nothing but a hyperlink. I reverted to a version with some content. RobertG ♬ talk 09:31, 16 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 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marztek[edit]

Contested ((prod)) brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 16 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 06:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Tales[edit]

Consested ((prod)) brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 09:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed external link, does this make it acceptable? People will already know how to access the website. —This unsigned comment was added by Kkrogstad (talk • contribs) .

Updated

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


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnerblade[edit]

Turkish article, has been listed on the translation desk for more than two weeks, and has not been translated. The original author returned once to add a "translation in progress" note, but that was also almost two weeks ago, and nothing has happened since. Delete unless translated while on AfD Kusma (討論) 10:24, 16 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 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maze of Thought[edit]

Delete A short film seen by 20 people. The official web site is on tripod. Prod removed without comment--Porturology 10:55, 16 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 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrine Of Love[edit]

The article consists of some poem and an unspecific explanation, with no indication that it was notable, and even if it was, cutting and pasting its text isn't encyclopedic. The supposed author's name gets 4 hits on google, with no indication that it's the same person, it's most likely something made up by the author of this article. - Bobet 11:08, 16 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. W.marsh 04:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misconceptions about the Shi'a[edit]

Also, i invite people to actualy do a count of the votes on the previous afd, in no way was there any concensus for merge that time. --Striver 23:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt creat this. I just touched it. I mean, i touched its talk page. --Striver 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the third time we are voting on this page without the people proposing for its deletion actually contributing to anything in the article, or even discussing anything about the article. Nor are they involved in the Shia article. In the previous AfDs, there was no consensus to merge or delete. This vote is therefore an attempt to yet again delete a Shia article for partisan POV reasons. And that, is pretty sad.--Zereshk 06:20, 17 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, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Ian Ballantyne[edit]

Delete contested prod without reason. I can not find independent verification of this CV. The book he claims to have translated is >400,000 on Amazon and there is no accreditation to him. (I would be surprised if an Indian academic required an English translator). Even if verification could be produced I think he falls below the notability level--Porturology 11:14, 16 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. JIP | Talk 11:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yarrum[edit]

Nonsense Ben W Bell 11:29, 16 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. W.marsh 05:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helgason Asgeir[edit]

However from my web-name, you can tell that I am a urologist and as a 'radical prostate cynic' I have read a lot of literature on cancer of the prostate and the complications of its treatment. At present your article does not say Helgason's age, qualifications, area of interest (e.g public health, surgery or social work), rank or position at the Karolinska.
All we have established is that he has about 40 citations and 33 of these are listed at pubmed. Reviewing these he is the first or last author of 14 and about 10 are in international, first rate journals.This compares with Walsh, Pat (I bet this comes out red) who has over 500 citations mostly in J Urol.
Interestingly the most important articles in the treatment of prostate cancer in the last 5 years have come from Sweden e.g.(N Engl J Med. 2005 May 12;352(19):1977-84).These articles have multiple authors but Helgason is not one of them.
In short I believe I am in a position to know who the major workers in Prostate cancer are and Helgason is not one of them.
By the way, Helgason's papers are usually co-authored by 5 or 6 - is it your intention to write vanity pieces about all of them? --Porturology 04:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Bobby and Knut. JoshuaZ 18:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC) *Delete per Porturology. JoshuaZ 06:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT 2: There appears to be some miss understanding by someone called Porturology that Helgason is urologist. As far as I can see from Swedish publications Helgason is no urologist. He (I think) is psychologist and public health scientist. He is involved in several aspects of health including psychological effect off treatment for different cancers and tobacco prevention. For me he is best known for his work in stop smoking services but I can recall front page articles in Sweden’s biggest newspapers (and TV) some years ago on his studies regarding sexual interest of old men and how treatment for prostate cancer could ruin men’s life since they became impotent etc. I tried to find these articles but they seem not still to be on the internet. However I did find many media articles links (directly to newspaper articles) from Sweden and other Nordic countries that are still available on the internet for Helgason. Most are on his work in tobacco and emotional problems for men with prostate cancer. I my view Helgason is outstanding for his clinical impact on so different fields = tobacco cessation, impotence, quality of life, prostate cancer, emotional problems, care of dying patients and their spouses etc.. In Sweden there are few people with this wide spectrum of impact. Also I looked at his over scientific publications (some were helgason a and some helgason ar) and as I can see they are more the 50? I did not know that he also was doing research in getetics in Iceland. This is what I found just now as links to on line newspaper articles on Swedish search engines. I tried to explain in English what each article is about:

http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/idag/did_9739365.asp (Svenska Dagbladet on prostate cancer and emotional isolation)

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=597&a=343773 (Dagens Nyheter on Helgasons tobacco prevention work)

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/0003/28/roka.html (Aftonbladet on the Swedish quitline)

http://www.systembolaget.se/AlkoholHalsa/Alkoholsamhalle/alkohol_nikotin_rokning.htm (In Sweden the state has monopoly on selling alcohol. This is the alcohol monopoly newspaper interviewing Helgason on his work with the Swedish smoking quitline and his plans to start a similar service for risk drinkers)

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/halsa/story/0,2789,280431,00.html (Aftonbladet on oral tobacco and cancer)

http://www.aftonbladet.se/telegram/0,1082,437113_INR__,00.html (Aftonbladet on men and emotional isolation)

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/telegram/0,1082,437113_INR_p_,00.html (Aftonbladet on emotional isolation)

http://www.mbl.is/mm/gagnasafn/tengdar.html?docid=1795132 (Several Icelandic articles in Morgunbladid – paid access only)

http://www.mbl.is/mm/gagnasafn/grein.html?grein_id=515846 (On the Icelandic tobacco quitline)

http://www.affarsvarlden.se/art/34033 (Affärsvärlden on oral tobacco)

http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=6363508 (The Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang = VG on oral tobacco as smoking cessation)

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/helse/article303547.ece (Norwegian Nettavisen on oral tobacco)

http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/Inrikes/did_2817840.asp (Svenska Dagbladet on the possibility do develop vaccine for nicotine dependence) Knut Knut 21:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MERCY MY FRIENDS: When I opened my e-mail this morning I had received mail from a person drawing my attention to an ongoing debate on this internet cite regarding my works and my person. After having scanned through what has been written (since I sent in my comment and asked people to stop) I feel I have to commend on some of the things stated in this strange debate:

1)In my previous mail I published my e-mail address so that people could communicate with me directly. I am therefore a little surprised that “Porturology” did not write directly to me with his questions. And “Porturology” you are right, this is a little embarrassing for me but also amusing. Makes you feel like a PhD student defending a thesis. Unfortunately I have other things to do than to follow debates on the internet. I actually though I had put a stop to the debate with my previous comment.

2) Nordic/Scandinavian people do not like to discuss their own work. It is considered to be inappropriate (especially in Sweden)to sell your self in any way. I know this is somewhat different in other countries but there you go! Different behaviour protocols in different parts of the world is what makes the world interesting.

3) When I did my PhD in 1997 on prostate cancer it received a lot of media attention. Probably not because it was a good work of science. Probably mainly because it dealt with subjects of media interest like sexual functioning, and the dilemma of trade-off between intact sexual function and curative treatment for localized prostate cancer. Also, it included a population based epidemiological study on male sexual functioning in men without prostate cancer up to 80 years that was considered to be relatively representative owing to a fair response rate. Also. at the time there was a heated debate in Scandinavia (and still is) on whether or not to treat localized prostate cancer with curative intent in if so what treatment to choose. So I became the victim of circumstances. My interest in the prostate cancer debate (treat or not to treat) diminished after I realized that there is a lot of politics and money involved and strong lobby groups primarily interested in selling them selves and their products. After that my work in the field has mainly been on emotional isolation of middle aged men and prostate cancer patients. However, emotional isolation in men is a also a typical media subject. So the bottom line is that my work in the area of prostate cancer has probably had this impact in the media owing to the nature of the subject. This media attention is troublesome since it takes up lots of time an energy and is nothing to strive for.

4)I thank “Knut” for his (her?) interest in my work (thanks for these links). However, I need to correct him/her on one aspect. My works on medical and psychological databases are unfortunately presented under both Helgason AR and Helgason A. This often leads to some confusion since my brothers name is Agnar Helgason and he also publishes under Helgason A. Articles on genetics published under Helgason A. are my brothers articles, not mine. I know less about genetics than an average chimpanzee. Sorry if I disappointed you on that.

5)I do not fully understand the focus on my prostate cancer research in this ongoing debate on my work. The fact is that my work on tobacco prevention and in particular smoking cessation (both clinical, educational and scientific) far outweighs my work in prostate cancer at the moment. I have PhD students in health psychology in two different departments at the Karolinska = public health sciences and oncology and presently my work in smoking cessation takes up 75% of my time. Presently we are e.g. developing a telephone based service for risk drinkers based on our experience of running a smoking cessation quitline from 1998. These services are free of charge and rigorously evaluated. In oncology my PhD students (at the moment)are mainly doing work in palliative care. So please “User:Porturology” and others cool down the prostate cancer debate.

6) I do not understand why people do not use their real names in debates like this? It is much more interesting to know who you are talking to. Is this some kind of policy on the Wikipedia?

Asgeir R. Helgason (asgeir.helgason@sll.se) Asgeir Helgason


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 I have redirected, most of the info seems to be merged already. Some of the merge supporters below want to tidy it up. W.marsh 05:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Tardent[edit]

Delete as Non Notable. Article Helen tardent has already been deleted three times as CSD A7, but creator User:Olympic objects. Mihai -talk 11:58, 16 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 other This has been redirected, and it seems like there was a consensus forming to delete, or at least that the old version of this page wasn't worth keeping. So for the time being redirecting seems okay. An article about points system for driving offenses or something could be created, of course. W.marsh 05:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point system for penalties[edit]

Delete. The article "Point system for penalties" has existed since May 2005. In that time, no explanation has ever been added to this non-article describing what a "point system for penalties" is. The sum total of the article is a "list" of countries that have "point systems for penalties" that includes only two items. The only article linking to "Point system for penalties" is "Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China". That article states, among other features of the law, that "The point system for penalties was integrated into the new law." It does not explain what the "point system for penalties" is, how it works, how important it is, or what this means to citizens. Instead, it links to "Point system for penalties", which, in lieu of explanation, states, "see Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China." This reflexive loop provides no information about the topic. A template citing lack of sufficient context was placed in July 2005, and was removed by another user the same day. I placed another such banner in February 2006 and added the comment to the talk page that I would be nominating the article for deletion the week ending 17 March 2006 if no additional information had been added. There has been no activity on the article since I placed the ((context)) template. This is not an article, it expresses no useful information, and it serves no purpose other than to take up space. Clearly no one has any interest in saving it, and after my involvement I still have no better idea of what a "point system for penalties" is. Delete it. Canonblack 12:25, 16 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 deletion by User:Tomf688 — User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Eastwood[edit]

Several attempts have been made to speedy delete this page. The speedy deletion is disputed so I thought maybe it should go here.

Errr ... because [38]?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 18:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in Morrowind[edit]

Delete This page reads more like a walkthrough than an encyclopedia article. The Soul Reaver 12:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are reduced to minimum by now, though article also needs to be more uniform. I'm working on it. CP/M 23:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really the first time this kind of thing has occured such that it could be called precedent setting? I mean there are tons of articles on video game characters. Anyway I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia has a somewhat broader scope than other encyclopedias. Dv82matt 02:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it the article should probably be renamed. Morrowind is a huge game with over 1000 characters and the article only lists a few of the most significant ones. Maybe it should simply be called "Characters in Morrowind" or maybe "Notable characters in Morrowind". Dv82matt 02:38, 22 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 15:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shmoop[edit]

"May be in store" two years from now. Little but advertising here. Bjones 13:56, 16 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, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y2kevin[edit]

Delete Non-notable group of people, doesn't meet WP:BIO. Google search finds no mention of this group existing, all references to "Y2kevin" are to messages on forums by someone with that username Xyzzyplugh 14:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this page was blanked by 141.158.20.2, I have reverted the blanking. --Xyzzyplugh 15:21, 17 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, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vorgalian[edit]

Seems like original research. Definitely not notable. Google search turned up two instances, one in a foreign language. Esprit15d 14:22, 16 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 irrelevant (article has been speedily deleted by User:Musical Linguist). --RobertG ♬ talk 15:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William James Evans[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. Not a chance of any other result (see WP:SNOW). Even the IP address of the article creator says delete. All dissent comes from a sole vociferous supporter of the article. Closing now to (hopefully) avoid further disruption. kingboyk 10:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Deasy[edit]

Delete. Disputed PROD nomination, so I brought it here. It's a vanity article (edited by User:Hdeasy, no less) with mostly genealogical information. Deasy's claims to fame seem to be 1) a self-published book and 2) a single political cartoon published in the 80s. android79 14:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFter having had to deprive Max of some valuable beach play time, I have composed this addition to my above written comments, to wit:
I feel there is a case for retaining Hugh Deasy, as not only is his book "Grannies" rather good and entertaining, but he is known in other circles. As a cartoonist he was quite successful in the 1980s in Ireland, with one fine political cartoon, reproduced in his book, making the pick of the year of Phoenix, which is the Irish Private Eye. So he is not only self-published – others have posted his cartoons. edit on cartoons as cartoons in these present times seem to be able to move the world--Will314159 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
While on the subject of cartoons 2 or 3 in Phoenix, dozens in 'Disarm', where he worked on the editorial team and discovered he functioned well in running up a quick cartoon to illustrate a 'breaking news' item. He probably could have done that on a bigger circulation paper - but astro-research beackoned. In 'Disarm' he had a running cartoon strip. Also, came 2nd in the Sunday Times competition for shcool-children to complete a super-hero cartoon strip -his entry was then re-produced in full in one of the 3 largest circulation newspapers of the time, the "Irish Press".
But of course he was not always kow-towing to the establishment, so the fact that he published cartoons in the Irish CND newspaper Disarm might not please the powers that be – could this be a reason for the move against him :-)  ? Speaking Truth to Power!
So he is not only a bit of a writer but an acknowledged artist – he has exhibited at ESOC as you can see from his home-page. He was also a bit of a child prodigy, winning prizes for his poems on Irish TV and Radio. Note that he is also planning to bring out a book on a science topic later this year – this time with a science publisher. The Wikipedia policy is to support budding writers and painters – if they are in that situation of being excellent but yet relatively unknown, then it is not fair to deny them even a small stub of an article, I take it that this is not really the issue at stake here, but more the supposed vanity aspect.
However, note that struggling writers must be pro-active in some sense or they will die in obscurity. On top of all that he is part of a small team controlling such key satellites as Envisat (major environmental data source), Integral (gound-breaking observations of high energy astrophysical objects) and ERS-2 (data from which recently confirmed the growth of ice in central Antarctica). So yes, I think this page should be retained, as well as the companion article on his book and the mention he gets in his uncle’s page.
If the problem is that he wrote that article, then consider myself the author of the Hugh Deasy article, and therefore that impediment is thereby removed. Max sends his felicitations.
the above comments have been relocated from the "Hugh Deasy" article Discussion Page.
Addition. I was led to the Wikipedia Heim Theory Article by the stupendous publlicity on Heim theory in 2006 due to the New Scientist and Scotsman article about the recent paper about the Hyperspace aspects and the Air Force taking the FTL aspects seriously. The talk pages turned up the name HDeasy consistently and Googling revealed his identity. He has revealed himself to be the most consistent and lucid elaborator of that theory. He is cogent writer and a PhD physicist and a working scientist. this is a rare combination. As a budding writer, illustrator, and cartoonist, that rare combination deserves a Wiki contribution. I plan to do a rewrite of the article in a few days.--user:Will314159 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the case that Wikipedia policy supports articles on "budding writers and painters"; see WP:BIO and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As for the allegations that I nominated this out of some sort of political motive: I'm an American and haven't the faintest clue about Irish politics. Lastly, setting aside whether the accomplishments you describe add up to any meaningful claim of notability, almost none of them are verifiable in any meaningful way. android79 15:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly Vanity. I believe that he is the Physicist that you are refering to above. Although I am lead to believe (by somebody who claims to know him) that he has spent the last twenty years working at ESAs ESOC control center. In ESOC he works on very simple parts of a number of missions, all in a very minor role. I would also appear that the only person defending this page is the user Will314159. Looking at the edits that this user does shows a bit of a history of defending anything Hugh Deasy posts to the wiki. This, in addition to the rather curious way that the Will describes Hugh Deasy i.e. in the manner of an intimate friend (he does seem to know an increable amount of detail about him), and the writing style, which seems very, very similar to Mr Deasy's himself, I would rather suspect the Will314159 is a ghost account created by Mr Deasy to back up his own none existant claims.—This unsigned comment was added by 192.171.3.126 (talk • contribs) .

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=45

There are many Wikipedia authors who have written more and better articles and don't have a page about themselves. The Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies define which biographies should be inclued on Wikipedia. Anyone is free to set up a personal vanity page on a different web server.
I'm sorry that I'm writing this comment anonymously but I don't have an acocunt. I know I could create one and put in two lines of text like Will314159. As long as anyone can create an account without personal identification (which is a good thing), I don't think that will give me more credability. The activities by Will314159 were mostly defending the Heim theory. 84.167.147.190 12:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) User's first and only edit. --kingboyk 11:49, 20 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. -- King of Hearts talk 02:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Spence[edit]

Yet another addition by User:Torshaw, copied straight from his local-interest book Terry Tales. This time it's not quite so clear cut but I think there's not enough notability or verifiability to justify keeping this article, even after a clean-up and rewrite. Delete Spondoolicks 14:50, 16 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, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jobin Os[edit]

no googles that seem relevent for "Jobin Os", it's still underdevelopement (if it exists) so not a crystal ball reason, looks like a hoax. RJFJR 15:03, 16 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 02:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Corvinus[edit]

NN person. Delete. See also AfD:Germandria Bissonius. --Fang Aili 15:23, 16 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 18:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaws Unleashed[edit]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 18:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sally[edit]

This person seems to be on the threshhold of notability for Wikipedia. I'm forcing the issue for three reasons: (1) there are several claims made in the article that need citations, including one about the film Proof that should be in IMDb if it's true, but isn't there; (2) Wikiquote now also has an article on this person (which has also been nominated for deletion), using the WP article to support a notability claim; and (3) to get a current "temperature" on the WP community's feelings about professor notability. I'm hoping this review will encourage interested editors to improve both articles in order to convince the respective communities with verifiable, reliable sources for the anecdotes and quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeff, for explaining the reasons more fully. I agree this has been a beneficial discussion. --C S (Talk) 20:12, 19 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 sent to redirects for deletion. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Medical Algorithm Project[edit]

this was a typo or confusion between medical and medication, there are medical algorithm projects and a medical algorithm article which should not get confused. DELETE Midgley 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. One lives and learns, thanks. Midgley 21:25, 16 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, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Ping[edit]

Notability not clarified. No references given. Kukini 15:52, 16 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 01:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfable[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:09, 16 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 all. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germandria Bissonius[edit]

NN person. No such "Bissonian Institution" according to Google [41] (could have been a misspelling of "Bassenian", but even then "Bassenian Institution" yields about 280 hits [42]. This article is part of a circle of non-notable person articles created by User:Keynes, including Caitlin Corvinus and Bunny Murphy.

comment if you look at
It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Iloveadama.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log.
's contributions, there are many vandalistic insertions of Bunny Murphy. Bucketsofg 00:21, 17 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 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic nationalism[edit]

Delete The article as is, although, after the last edits, the text is mainly mine, contains no useful information at all. We need either to purge it or get a proper article with historical references to Nationalism in general vs. the Icelandic þjóðernishyggja which are not the same concepts. In order to deal with the topic one would need to compare nationalism and patriotism (both of which are covered elsewhere) and provide the history of the very few genuinely nationalistic "nationalistic" movements in Iceland. The only example I can think of is the extremely ineffectual Nazi Party, which did in fact exist, but was mostly the object of derision. Io 19:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After three keeps against my own delete, am I in the position of wishing to erase an article, which probably owes most to me, against the wishes of other readers? Talk about irony. Cheers Io 22:08, 16 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 01:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Mayfors Smith[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Non-notable local politician, of which there are many thousands in the UK. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:11, 16 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 01:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planktum[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:12, 16 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.

Ku'rapha

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

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a hoax. - Eagletalk 16:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ku'rapha is very real.

And to those say otherwise, try to explain that to myself and the others that meet at my ku'rapha home group gatherings. When we see lives changed daily because of the words and support of our spiritual brothers and sisters.

Yes, some people tell me that I can't believe something that they refer to as nonsensical new age crap.

But wasn't one of the reasons people came to america was to have the freedom to worship their God in the way they saw best, and is it so wrong that I want to share with others the joy that I found in Ku'rapha?

I don't want to press my beliefs on anyone. In fact part of Ku'rapha is equality, and the includes other religions and belief structures. Ku'rapha is about providing a different way of looking at the world. And providing support for those in need.

Thank you all for you time in reading this.

~R.L.Davis

Comment Wikipedia is not the government, so the constitution is irrelevant. The only relevant questions for listing in Wikipedia are: Is it verifiable? No. Nobody except the person or persons posting here have ever heard of it. Is it notable? No. Same reason. That's all. (By the way, this is at least the third unknown religion this week.) Fan1967 02:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
all religions are "unknown" until someone makes them know. i don't know about those other two, but this one is very real. ~RLD
Response It may well be very real (the other two also, or at least one of them). However, it's not verifiable and not notable. Do you really believe there should be an encyclopedia entry for every belief that has a few dozen (or few, or a few hundred) adherents? Fan1967 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to keep concentrating on the fact that your belief is "REAL". Wikipedia does not have a rule about "real". It has rules about verifiable and notable. Heaven's Gate was in every newspaper and on every broadcast outlet in the world. You have been documented or reported where? Fan1967 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you want to Verify it? You are most welcome to join one of our meetings. There are many people there who are more than willing to talk to you about Ku'rapha as our combined faith. When are you going to be in Phoenix, AZ? You can join us for a 3F group. (don't worry, our 3F groups are just so we can invite our friends to an event that doesn't cause them to feel uncomfortable. So you can meet us and see that it is very much real, That way you can be a "VERIFIABLE" source. But, Po-Jay already did that for me. I'd Like to note that Po-Jay isn't an active Member of Ku'rapha. But he has joined us for a few 3F groups. (fyi: 3F stands for "Fun, Food, and Fellowship", and 3F groups are a great time for Ku'raphites and Non-Ku'raphites alike)... Myself and a fellow Brother are currently working on a Booklet/Track. If you'd like, I could send you a copy, via US mail, once it gets back from the painters. Your call on that one. ~ RLD (User:Rdsvn01)
  • Please read the policy on verifiability. Also, it would help to pay attention to what constitutes a reliable source for verification. I am not a reliable source. Neither are you (no offense) or Po-Jay. Fan1967 18:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you want me to send you the booklet? I don't have any ONLINE sources. but I have prints ones. And besides... back to the example of Joseph Smith, "All you can say is that 'some guy' said this, or 'some gal' said that. Am I not also 'some guy' who is able to make statements as well? The validity of those statements were made on someone's spoken word. Now I might not be speaking these words aloud to you, but I'm saying them never the less. The religious belief of Ku'rapha is valid, and notable enough to be placed on Wikipedia."
Something else, are telling me that if i just go out and make a webpage and put ku'rapha stuff on it, that would be a reliable source of info. a Published Webpage? if so, that's pretty ridiculous, but i can do that...if that will convince you. ~ RLD (User:Rdsvn01)
  • Yes... so what i understand is that you will NEVER believe me, or NEVER agree for this document to be placed on Wikipedia.
Side Note. We are currently in the process of filing the paper work for The Ku'rapha Brotherhood to have a non-profit organizational tax ID number. once that goes through, i still don't you all will leave it up. the US government isn't considered a "reliable source", you know with the whole "weapons of mass destruction" never being located in all..... yeah, some reliable source they are. :) ... Point is, I'm just going to accept that you are just a close minded person. and i feel sorry for you. I'm done arguing the fact that it should not be deleted. I still feel that it should not be deleted, but i accept that I'll never convince you. ~ RLD (User: Rdsvn01)
This deletion is nothing personal against you or your religion - Wikipedia has fairly well-established guidelines about notability and verifiability. Verifiability requires published sources of some kind - click on this link: WP:V. The policy is non-negotiable - it's not meant as an insult against your religion, it's meant to protect Wikipedia and make it a more reliable source. Please try to understand that this is nothing personal against you - you seem like an impassioned person with strong beliefs, and that's admirable. It's just that until your religion is better-established and has published sources that document it and its membership, we can't include it here without violating the consensus rules of the community. Personally, I can promise you that when your faith gets recognition in any sort of established media source that meets WP guidelines, I will vote "keep" on any article you make about it. That's a promise. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I also struck invalid votes (repeated and anonymous). In your last comment, do you mean "Do not delete as per yourself"? - Eagletalk 03:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but that's a bit confusing. Gazpacho 06:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about that, Eagle. I don't think Gazpacho and Po-Jay are the same person. i mean, i know Po-Jay, he is a good friend of mine. but i don't know Gazpacho. so i think you might be mistaken in that they are the same person and that Gazpacho was quoting himself. ~RLD (User:Rdsvn01)

DO NOT DELETE!! do you realize that you are asking RLD to prove all ov the worlds religions! he stated that it is based off of all beliefs. so here is the thought- untill all of you jackasses can prove that Jesus really did rise form the grave and Moses really prted the Red Sea, and spoke to a burning bush and can proveid this proof and its not hearsay. you have no proof of your beliefs eother. lets face it thats all they ar is your beliefs nothing more.being that i am a trans-channeling intuitive medium, and my guide is a Pharaoh from ancient Egypt and has first hand knowledge of the MISSinterpritations of the bible, here is a clue- its symbolic NOT literal- it was the REED sea he alledgedly parted not the RED sea. my advise to all of you re-read EXIDUS and do it with an open mind.68.225.200.180 13:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Prince Pharaoh[reply]

Again, this is a misunderstanding. We're not asking him to verify his beliefs - we're asking him to verify the existence of a religious organization created around those beliefs. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


We've already established this article and AfD is a joke (and an unfunny one at that), as well as a WP:POINT violation, per [45]. WP:AGF has gone out the window. Please don't continue to feed the trolls, and just let the closure process take its course. --Kinu t/c 19:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last statement... sorry.... here is the deal, Ku'rapha is my belief. And it is very real to myself and others.... but i totally agree with the fact that there is NOT enough information to have it placed on Wikipedia. it's just that i enjoy to argue. even when i know i am wrong, and will lose. you all will be seeing ku'rapha again as a entry... BUT i will be prepared with more "reliable sources" to back myself help. and when that time comes, i hope to see you all here again. Thank you all for the great time. And sorry for causing all this so called unfunny joke. (which i also disagree on ;] ) so until we all meet again. good-bye ~ RLD (User:Rdsvn01)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Liberatore(T) 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milton mapes[edit]

another non notable band Gator (talk) 16:38, 16 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 01:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi breslow[edit]

Delete as non-notable, non-verifiable. This article is literate but evidently describes a film project which is not complete. Neither Mimi Breslow nor her filmmaker get significant Google results.--Lockley 17:34, 16 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 01:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Kersting[edit]

I can find no evidence to back up any of this article. All searches come back to references to the Wikipedia article. Ben W Bell 17:37, 16 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 incorrectly titled page. W.marsh 05:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John WI Brown[edit]

This is almost certainly a vanity page. The subject's notability is questionable. Was raised as a speedy delete, but does not fit speedy delete criteria. DLJessup (talk) 17:50, 16 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. – Robert 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The power of many: how the living web is transforming politics, business, and everyday life[edit]

Delete A single non notable book from an author with very few responses through Google. No edits since its creation Tyhopho 17:54, 16 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 19:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Murphy[edit]

Nn biography. Could not verify any information, not even that a journalist named Bunny Murphy ever existed. Text seems implausible: born in 1840s, died in 1960? Mangojuice 18:00, 16 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 01:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TerraColor[edit]

As the article creator and also developer of the product mentioned, reconsidered that this may not be appropriate from NPOV standpoint. An outside party can re-create this in the future if interested. If not an issue, maybe it can stay.Earthstar 18:23, 16 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 19:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Eye[edit]

Delete vanity page San Saba 18:35, 16 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 19:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlestown Square[edit]

Delete not notable enough for inclusion in WP San Saba 18:41, 16 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. W.marsh 03:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testability[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 no consensus to delete, merge possible though, of course. W.marsh 03:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hutton[edit]

Delete fails Google test San Saba 19:04, 16 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. Shanel 02:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Noise (band)[edit]

Delete on grounds of apparent self promotion and questionable notability


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kanar[edit]

Delete RL RPG played by only a handful of ppl in one local - not notable San Saba 19:15, 16 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 06:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Jackson-Hutton[edit]

Delete vanity page San Saba 19:20, 16 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 19:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Polack[edit]

Delete as non-verifiable and likely hoax. This article's content, edit history and author's history all mark it as a hoax/joke/shaggy dog story/Pollack joke. Not verifiable on Google. It is linked from article Vincent Kersting, another article submitted in the deletion queue above. --Lockley 19:21, 16 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. W.marsh 03:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State University student riot[edit]

Delete not notable San Saba 19:28, 16 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 19:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities thought to have ADHD[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 no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raiffeisen Observation Tower[edit]

Delete fails Google test San Saba 19:39, 16 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 deleted as junk by Jimfbleak. Proto||type 13:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shower night[edit]

Delete not notable San Saba 19:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one time happening--216.8.170.186 22:17, 16 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 deletion (per A3 - no content) ---Obli (Talk)? 20:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazokilla[edit]

It's pointless. DuctapeDaredevil 20:46, 16 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. W.marsh 03:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asiantown[edit]

Alexa rank of 83,357. Fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 20:59, 16 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. Shanel 02:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commie robots[edit]

Good work on the page, but unfortunately bands with a single demo that are about to release their debut albums do not meet the standards of WP:MUSIC. Text is a little too promotional as well. Daniel Case 21:04, 16 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. Harro5 06:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boatfax[edit]

This company does not appear to be notable; the creator of the article appears to be identical to the founder and CEO listed in the infobox. Henning Makholm 21:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original author User:Haythorn recently added a ((delete)) tag above the AfD box, which makes the article speedily deletable under WP:CSD#G7. Henning Makholm 22:10, 18 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 01:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die famous[edit]

Only signficant Google hit is this "cult fashion" designer's MySpace. Vanispamcruftisement. Daniel Case 21:12, 16 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 01:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origami lad's superhero society[edit]

non-notable webcomic with only one 'issue' in existance (and even that wasn't there when the article was written). Delete --InShaneee 21:12, 16 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. W.marsh 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koyla (restaurant)[edit]

Hi - non-notable, unsourced topic. Rama's Arrow 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 21:20, 16 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 Speedied. --Golbez 22:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Reininger[edit]

Has already been speedied twice under A7, but re-created. I'm bringing it here to see whether the community at large considers this person notable. He is an umpire in minor league baseball, which IMO does not meet WP:BIO's criteria for sportspeople. He also (allegedly, no source has been provided for this) won a car and money on a television game show, which is not even contemplated at WP:BIO. My vote is speedy delete (again) for nonnotability. Angr/talk 21:38, 16 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. W.marsh 03:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mars photos[edit]

I suggest deleting this badly formated image gallery. It is certainly not an encyclopedia article. Rmhermen 21:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this belongs in another wiki. Don't remember which. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpgImpart wisdom 22:28, 16 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. Obvious attack page on a random teacher. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Kiek[edit]

Delete due to lack of relevance to any useful subject

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as empty. Just zis Guy you know? 23:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konstanty Jerzy Maria Czartoryski[edit]

Fails to assert any notalibity whatsoever.

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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 02:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cdigix[edit]

Putting this up for deletion as advertising. Article does not appear to claim notability as per WP:WEB, but I'm bringing this to AfD to allow debate on this point (so that would be a delete from me unless convinced otherwise). Petros471 22:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes. JIP | Talk 06:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, it really, really needs to be translated away from "ad-speak". Kuru talk 05:12, 24 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 06:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse, Lund[edit]

Non-notable student accomodation, home to 50 students. Prod tag removed by User:213.80.27.34. -- Cnwb 22:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic, too. GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpgImpart wisdom 22:21, 16 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 delete (we make mistakes...). – Sceptre (Talk) 14:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of virtuosi performers[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 BJAODN and DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Study Activities[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 19:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Platonism and Christian Cosmology[edit]

As the author states on the talk page, this entry is purely original research and a personal essay. Harro5 22:47, 16 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. W.marsh 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Red English Bulldogges Association & Registry[edit]

Good faith effort by uninvolved editor to consolidate links entered by a spammer, but this association seems to consist of 4 people representing 4 kennels, and the registry seems to exist only to sell dogs by these breeders. 207 google hits, all of which are self-placed ads. Fails WP:CORP - Trysha (talk) 22:53, 16 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 06:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Hearn[edit]

Don't think he's a notable academic. Looks like he's an audio engineer with a couple of famous clients who teaches at a music college. Google reveals 31 hits [53], not all about him. Just don't think he's notable enough per WP:BIO and don't think he passes the professor test. -- Samir (the scope) 23:12, 16 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/Sympatico

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 userfied which is what I should have done in the first place. Just zis Guy you know? 00:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Reichert[edit]

Tagged as nn-bio, but notability is asserted. Just zis Guy you know? 23:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You messed up somewhere in the process, but I think it's fixed now... — Mar. 16, '06 [23:25] <freakofnurxture|talk>
I clicked the AFD helper button form the History page - a mistake I will not make again. Bah! Just zis Guy you know? 23:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So now as well as screwing up the AfD helper, I missedd the fact that I should have userfied it. Probably time to call it a day. Just zis Guy you know? 00:07, 17 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. – Robert 00:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regressive Rock[edit]

Neologism. From an earlier edit - "The term was coined by chronic web-user Revamp although it has not come to any great proliferation of usage due to his lack of access to the mainstream media". -- Cnwb 23:33, 16 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 this content, the people interested in the merge can of course persue that. W.marsh 05:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Philips[edit]

Tagged for speedy, contested. Notability is asserted. I still would not know her from a hole in the ground, but I suspect some people might. Just zis Guy you know? 23:34, 16 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. WP:POINT, WP:WEB, WP:SNOW. kingboyk 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hattrick[edit]

Delete. Fails the WP:WEB, just like Sokker and Popomundo did. Deallus 23:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deallus is just envious, because his beloved sokker has only some 10thousand users and is not noticeable. This is pure envy!

Keep: This is upcoming article which will be good in some time.

U-huh. So in what way does a site with an Alexa rank just outside the top thousand, 800,000 registered users, millions of Google hits, thousands of inbound links, multiple related forums and fansites and several dozen third-party add-ins fail WP:WEB? Just zis Guy you know? 11:22, 17 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. – Robert 00:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Schneidermann[edit]

No vote, but I would like to have some feedback here before I decide whether to delete this article on the Interlingua wikipedia. -- Dissident (Talk) 23:41, 16 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. Shanel 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned Christian Parents[edit]

Non-notable and self-serving Carlo 23:45, 16 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Wroe Golf Course[edit]

This course is about as insignificant as a golf course can be. It is par 64 course aimed mainly at beginners so there is no chance it will ever hold a tournament of any signficance whatsoever. Category:Golf clubs and courses needs populating, but with articles about places like the great courses with red links in the Golf Digest article, not articles like this one. Delete Osomec 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Osomec 23:46, 16 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 DakotaKahn. -- JLaTondre 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Moon (CLAMP Character)[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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland County Golf Club[edit]

As with the one nominated above, this is a golf course of the utmost insignficance. It just clutters up the English golf courses category, which should only contain courses which have staged significant tournaments or are notable in the history of golf course design. Delete Osomec 23:50, 16 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brampton Heath golf course[edit]

A completely random entry for a municipal golf course of no conceivable interest to anyone who doesn't play there. Category:Golf clubs and courses needs populating, but with articles about places like the great courses with red links in the Golf Digest article, not articles like this one. Delete Osomec 23:55, 16 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.
Categories