The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Tunisia[edit]

I really think that it is an unnecessary article, not only due to the fact that it is poorly written and non-wikified, but additionally its content would easily be suited to be included in the article Tunisia.

--NicAgent 15:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per every other African country having one. See the template at the bottom of the page. The current state of the article has nothing to do with whether or not it should be deleted, the potential does. --Rory096 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is Transport in Tunisia. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transport in Tunisia. kotepho 16:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above Jcuk 17:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Osomec 18:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite into a coherent article. Punkmorten 21:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. We have articles on transport for every country in the world and Tunisia should be no exception. Capitalistroadster 21:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and mop up as per above. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, must be cleaned up --Ugur Basak 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with cleanup, as above Bucketsofg 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup, then keep. A bit painful at the minute. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have similar articles of several other countries, like Brazil, so, why not Tunisia? Carioca 00:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have started work on cleaning this up. Hope to have it completed over the next couple of days. Capitalistroadster 03:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup completed.

Capitalistroadster 06:53, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riverbend Mall[edit]

I would like to propose this defunct mall for deletion. Apparently there has been in the past some disagreement on whether malls are in general notable. Consider this negligible mall, which operated for about 15 years, and not in Times Square, either, if you catch my drift. Does it deserve an article? I say it's non-notable. Then consider "Category:Defunct shopping malls in the United States" (18 entries) and "Category:Shopping malls in the United States" (hundreds). How big is big enough for mall notability? In opining on this page, I ask you to not only decide the fate of Riverbend, but broaden the discussion, so that we could set a meaningful well-argued precedent for the future of malls on WP. DELETE. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep A good article. I'm an inclusionist in most cases. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The article was written by the same person who wrote it on deadmalls.com with a personal knowledge of the center. Enclosed malls are not a dime a dozen and if they had major anchors and served a whole city count as legitimate. This mall was also notable in that it contained the only Georgia store for several major, now defunct chains.
• Weak Delete Malls are a dime a dousin, surely a defunct shopping mall that was neither the first or greatest in anything, doesn't assert much notability.Eivind^speak! 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this nn mall. No comment for now on the others. JoshuaZ 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete questionably notable and very poorly written. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn and WP:V. I think a lot of the defunct mall stuff unnecessarily mirrors http://www.deadmalls.com . It's possible there are other sources for this article, but actually no sources are identified even though http://www.deadmalls.com/malls/riverbend_mall.html was probably a major one. Esquizombi 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, an ordinary, non-notable, defunct mall. Not a bad article, though. Lord Bob 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good article and makes no difference to me whether the mall is operating now or not. It played a role in its economy and thus has historical interest and a story to be told. -- JJay 01:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, my great-grandpappy used to run a tobacco and snuff business off a horse-drawn cart. He stimulated growth in the local lung cancer treatment center economy, and reduced horse unemployment. Should he have an article too, under Cat:Defunct Solo Proprietorships? lol the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do the article and then we can talk about it. Otherwise, I fail to see why you think removing information from this site is some kind of joke. -- JJay 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete It's no more or less a joke than the assertion that this article on a mall which is indistinguishable from thousands of others is worth keeping. Building on a flood plain isn't too bright, but if we want an article telling us that people are stupid, this is not it. Denni ☯ 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay. Weatherman90 01:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay, although it should be cleaned up to make it more encyclopedic. BryanG 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There are literally hundreds of thousands of non-notable shopping centers, and even more failed ones, in the world. One could spend a lifetime cataloging them. If it has some historical significance aside from being flooded in the 90s and the site of a kidnapping in the early 80s, I may be persuaded to change my mind, but I just don't see that in the article. -Dawson 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn mall. --Terence Ong 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think malls should be included unless they are the first/greatest/most of something (biggest, most visitors, first in a state, etc.) GrandmasterkaFile:Blend Flag.jpg^{Impart wisdom} 03:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. I tend to think that there should be a centralized discussion on what makes a mall notable. Otherwise, I fear a string of no consensus votes on the horizon. Also, I find the mall to be as notable and well-referenced as most of the high schools that have articles here, so yeah, keep. youngamerican (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's another problem area... I blithely tried to AfD one or two recently... Lack of experience. It turns out, high schools are notable by virtue of existence. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I struck the part of my vote that was meant to show frustration with school inclusionism, since some people misunderstood what I was saying. But, yeah, keep for now (although it would need cleanup and verify tags), have a centralized discussion and a policy in place, then delete this if it fails to meet the guidelines. youngamerican (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per crazy ruuskie ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment maybe I'm missing something here but if we had a corporation that owned the mall, even owned a few malls we would probably delete it by WP:CORP. So I have trouble understanding how when the malls are separated they should be kept. JoshuaZ 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some people tend to view malls as objects of geographical notability. E.g., the Mall of America, a profoundly notable thing, is run by the "Ghermezian Organization", a profoundly NN CorpMelvin Simon and Associates. Not that that should detract from the "delete" for this one. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Well, there goes that one. You prob. get my point tho. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are there any statistics regarding malls? Any rankings per country? This would give us a better clue as to notability. Also did it contain any notable stores? Did it leave an impact on the area or did it simply vanish without a trace? Did it have any attributable economic/social impact on the area? I believe these are things to consider. Joelito 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after failing to see notability. Joelito 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Perhaps a Shopping mall wikiproject? - Scaife
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep If schools are considered notable enough, why not malls? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just because there is currently an odd attitude towards schools among some editors(which is being reworked btw) doesn't mean we need to start applying the same logic to other areas. JoshuaZ 06:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep; I tend to support the idea of a wikiproject. ProhibitOnions 10:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I'm mis-understanding, but does this mean that you support keeping any article that's part of a Wikiproject? If I started Wikiproject People's Left Shoes, would you vote to keep Lord Bob's left shoe because it was in a Wikiproject? I realize this is a very absurd example but, honestly, that was the first thing that came to mind when I read your comment. I'd just like to know where the line comes in. Lord Bob 15:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A wikiproject isn't really what is needed here. There needs to be a centralized discussion, leading to a policy proposal, so we can sort out what, if anything, makes a given mall notable. youngamerican (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Articles such as this are important as they show an example of a general economic trend. The article could do for some citiations of sources, if those sources arent from first hand observations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.80.147 (talk • contribs)
• Weak Keep What, are we running low on space? Why not? I mean, it's a place, no? --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 10:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is my garden. So is the McDonalds' down the road from me. Should they have articles? Please, could you explain your reasoning, I'm concerned that I'm missing something, here. Proto||type 16:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a place that has had a large cultural and economic impact on an area, and was visited by, and known to, tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people. So, unless you have a really popular garden, the distinction is clear. McDonald's is a chain, and no different than most other ones, unlike malls and schools, which have unique characteristics to them. Plus, the latter two have a far greater economic impact on area than a single restauarant does. Turnstep 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete malls aren't notable unless there is a clear reason why they are. In my opinion, schools notability should not be automatic. MLA 12:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A standard mall is a lot less important than a standard school. Scranchuse 14:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable (per MLA). Kuzaar 15:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as non-notable and of strictly local interest. Adolescents may find shopping malls to be interesting subject matter, but this article is deadly dull, and I had to make a real effort to finish it. I doubt this mall has significantly affected anyone who hasn't shopped there or otherwise seen it. Brian G. Crawford 15:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and no doubt a slap on my wrist for daring to expect some kind of quality control to be applied to Wikipedia. WP:NOT a memorial, and that should apply to buildings even more so than people. Was the mall notable in its time? Nope. Therefore, it is not now. The arguments to keep this 'article' are exceptionally flimsy (along the lines of 'keep because it should be kept'. Proto||type 16:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, strong delete - article is ENTIRELY unreferenced and unverified, as well as ugly and badly written. If hyper-inclusionism does prevail, then merge a less-boring and badly-written (ie, three line) description into Rome, GA. Proto||type 16:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; large buildings are "notable". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Question though (which has nothing directly to do with this AfD, sorry). If Schools are automatically notable, and malls are becoming so, why are churches not? Jcuk 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment if this isn't an indication of the general absurdity of the inclusion of all malls and schools, I don't know what is. JoshuaZ 17:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given up on trying to figure things like this out. The beliefs of some Wikipedians make my brain hurt. So I just don't worry about it and try to pretend they don't exist. It's remarkably effective. Lord Bob 18:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an important part of the local economy and something that has affected thousands of people. I've also cleaned up the article a bit - if people have further complaints or suggestions on it, please leave a note on the article's talk page. Turnstep 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and a shout into the wind. It's a mall, dead and buried. It wasn't even around for a particularly long time for a mall. It wasn't particularly significant, unless being the only Bon-Ton in Georgia is something that's particularly notable. That said, it lacks verifiability, which is the final shot to the head of this dead horse. We don't need to mirror deadmalls.com.  RasputinAXP  c 21:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn mall, nn concept, nn category. 204.69.40.7 22:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to say Delete. I see no reason why a defunct shopping centre is notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please it has a historical interest the wiki is not paper Yuckfoo 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, and information duplicated at DeadMalls.com. Mhking 01:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is not deadmalls.com Yuckfoo 01:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, and it's not a repository for useless information either. Denni ☯ 01:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • this is not useless thanks Yuckfoo 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable defunct mall Cursive 02:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've added some info on the Millican kidnapping and murder- the subject of books, plays and Oprah. In fact, malls are not just cultural and economic centres for their areas, the village squares of our times. Besides being fun places to shop and buy ice cream, they are often the scene of real confrontation between good and evil and a microcosm of society. I think that is part of the reason why we should be talking about them here. -- JJay 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Basketball courts are also scenes of "real confrontation between good and evil and a microcosm of society" but should we have articles about every basketball court? Joelito 15:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If that is where serial killers prey because of the easy access to young girls, yes. -- JJay 15:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The killers are notable but the site where the killing occurs is not necessarily notable. Furthermore the killing didn't even take place in the mall. Joelito 15:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Combined with all the other aspects Riverbend clearly deserves a place here. Its connection with this notorious crime means that its memory lives on and it should not be forgotten. Millican would be alive had she not gone to the mall or gotten separated from her group. She would also be alive if the Neeleys had not seen Riverbend as an easy place to grab vics. The question is why are malls breeding grounds for these kind of events? Telling the story of individual malls helps shed light on the issue.-- JJay 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but I fail to see other aspects which establish notability. Also I doubt that telling the story of individual malls help shed light on the issue. Finally deadmalls.com clearly states that "the mall is now merely a memory". Joelito 16:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deadmalls page is a blog post by one user...but thanks for sharing your opinion -- JJay 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAAHHH - the pain! The murdered Lisa Ann Millican doesn't even have her own article! If her murder is notable, it should be on her page, not the mall's! For crying out loud, people! the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per JJay and Turnstep. Zagalejo 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep Look folks. I wrote the article for deadmalls.com and I did duplicate it here, but wrote it much better than on deadmalls.com. I have wanted to sever ties with that site and have been publishing NOTABLE malls and major store chain histories for the state of Georgia on wiki. I especially like to note the vacant or demolished ones because these are places that people made memories that they might like to look back and find information on. Rich's? The Rich's at Greenbriar? I remember Greenbriar from 20 years ago, I'd like to hear what they had to say about it (see the point?).
  There are approximately 40 noteworthy malls in Georgia with major department store anchors: that is it. I am talking traditional, general enclosed malls that featured at least one major department store anchor. This one had three. Malls are disappearing at a rapid rate nationwide. These malls were significant, including some that were short-lived. Some successful malls die young. If an earthquake destroyed the world's largest mall five years after it opened, it would still be significant. Also, most of these descriptions consist of maybe two paragraphs with no photographs, logos or anything. I think Wiki wouldn't crash over that. This information is enjoyed by a surprisingly large amount of people and represents a time when malls were like cities themselves. People made memories in these places and they were known by thousands, maybe millions of people. The fact that they are dying this soon represents a major shift in American society. Riverbend Mall had a very large shopping area drawing people from upwards of three states and caused downtown Rome to lose its two major department stores and completely killed it for years. The mall also stood for actually 24 years though its period of actual success was only 15. And yes, this information came from memory and research of the various regional department store chains. I also remember seeing them report the flooding of the mall on the Atlanta news that year. I knew Hess's, Belk Rhodes and JCPenney (three major anchors) were all there and saw them with my own eyes. I do not need to quote that...I saw it for myself. And yes, this was a successful mall that died young because of a natural disaster (albeit poor planning). The location where it stood is still the major commercial strip of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.147.54 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 19 March 2006 moved down here for chronology sake. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E)

• Thank you anon user for clearly establishing this as original research and lacking verifiability. Joelito 16:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. There is a huge difference between writing something from memory and OR. All the store changes, flooding, etc. are verifiable right out of the newspapers. -- JJay 16:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. I was there. I saw the anchors, remember when it happened. I saw the banner in front of the Belk Rhodes that read "Outlet Store" a year after Mount Berry opened. I saw the very seedy looking Bon-Ton there with the cheap looking sign. That was strictly from memory and I remember the year well. I was going to Little River Canyon that day and noticed it. I ate in the Morrison's Cafeteria and shopped in the Reed/Big B/Revco/CVS drug store there. I spent much time in that old Belk Rhodes as a kid with my mom and even took a photograph in 2002 of the store just before the wrecking ball finished it off. I can also see a Chick Fil A employee handing out samples along that ramped part of the mall up to the food court around 1991 or so. We used to shop there a lot from about 1985-1992 or so.

• Delete as this mall lacks particular significance or notability, and malls are not inherently notable. The murder does not affect this — it had no geographic resonance; a tragedy that could have been located in thousands of other non-notable malls. Sliggy 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Strikeout as issue not relevant now a separate article has been created. Sliggy 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: due to the recent rash of "if it exists, we need an article about it" folks showing up at Afd, I raised the question of notability of buildings at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of buildings. Malls and dorms seem to be the most common buildings that we get articles about. We have standards for businesses, see WP:CORP. I don't see how an individual property is more "notable" than the business than owns it, so I don't think being a mall is sufficient reason for inclusion. There are hundreds of thousands of them, they pretty much all do the same thing. For this article my opinion is delete (not that it matters), but I've no prejudice against someone making an article about the kidnapping incident. That seems to be the most significant thing about this mall. Friday (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; WP:N Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In the AfD for List of dead and distressed shopping malls, we already determined that dead malls are notable, and determined to keep the list. Articles about dead malls, this one included, are notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I have removed the Lisa Ann Millican murder into its own article. That was the only potentially notable thing about this mall. To the admin who closes this: please disregard that rationale.- the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 17:15, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina[edit]

This article was originally moved from the Storm history of Hurricane Katrina, and after that, the section was greatly condensed from this article. Most of the important details on this article are already on Hurricane Katrina, and everything else is excessive detail which can be obtained from the official source given on the article. Since there really isn't anything to merge, it should be deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Reyk 00:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if there is nothing to merge. Note that the article "History of Hurricane Katrina" redirects to this one. If this is deleted, so should that, or redirected to Hurricane Katrina. Carlo 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't accept deleting an article based on a claim of "excessive detail". Who is to say what is excessive and what is not? The material was spun out from the main article, and while I'm not opposed to merging it back, I see no point in reducing our coverage of this event. Furthermore, what kind of argument is it to say that there are better sources available elsewhere? In that case, why should we bother working on articles in the first place since there are great pages, fan sites, official sites etc. for just about everything. Or to put it another way, maybe we should devise a template that blanks pages and provides a link to the better sources available on the internet. -- JJay 01:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing at all wrong with that argument. If it has been done better elsewhere, where is the crime in redirecting people to another site. There is no reason information must be physically stored in one bank of servers. The only reason I can think of for wanting to keep information on Wikipedia's servers is because of the dreaded 404 Not Found error when an external link goes down. Denni ☯ 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just about everything has been done better and in greater detail elsewhere. For example, witness Vegreville, Alberta a little town of no consequence that no one has ever heard of. Our article is six lines, some statistics and a bad photo of an easter egg. What is the point of having editors try to maintain that inconsequential bit of villagecruft when the good folks at www.vegreville.com already provide such incredible detail and a halfway decent picture of the same egg? Why not just link directly to that site, since god knows we will never do it better than the people condemned to worship that egg 365 days a year? Of course, I'll fight for the right of the editors who think they can outdo vegreville right here at wikipedia. I just wish you would join me... -- JJay 03:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wiki is not paper, but it should still summarize history rather than describe it in excruciating detail. Merge anything crucial to Hurricane Katrina. Deizio 02:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Conditionally only if the article contains info not already in other articles. Weatherman90 02:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The detail is excessive because this amount of detail is available in the tropical cyclone reports of every Atlantic hurricane. Do we need a detailed storm history article of every Atlantic hurricane? No, because it does not meet notability criteria. If anything, the TCRs should be added to wikisource. This is text I cut out of the Katrina article because it became too long, and the article itself has thus become a rather poor copy of the TCR (which is very interesting reading, by the way). — jdorje (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to this: Do we need a detailed storm history article of every Atlantic hurricane? No we don't. Was Katrina just another Atlantic hurricane? No, it wasn't. Which is perhaps why we have 107 articles in our Category:Hurricane Katrina. The community seems to have decided that detail is required for this storm. -- JJay 02:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that is that having such a large amount of information for one storm makes it extremely difficult to manage and improve the article. As Jdorje said, this information is already available somewhere else in Wikipedia, and to have detail to the amount you're indicating, it should be added to Wikisource instead of here. Katrina may be a remarkable storm due to its impact, but the majority of the editors who actually maintain this article want it gone, as it is completely redundant. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no problem managing or improving the material since it was spun out from the main article. Deleting will certainly not help editors to improve it. Also, jdorje has not said that the material is available elsewhere in wikipedia. A simple comparison of this with Hurricane Katrina shows that the material is not covered there to this extent. Finally, please do not speak for the "majority" of editors here. -- JJay 10:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So long as there is any new material, it needs to be kept. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't any new material that can be added, everything has been covered in detail at the Hurricane Katrina article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay. Given the impact Katrina had, I don't think this article offers excessive detail. David Sneek 10:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major issue. This amount of detail is useful, given the controversy surrounding the failure to evacuate on time. Some of the detail from the main article can be offloaded onto this if there's duplication. ProhibitOnions 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ProhibitOnions — important aspect of a major event. Feezo (Talk) 14:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do people even read the article being AfD'd and the explanations? All information is in other articles, this article is unnecessary. Everything else is available via the external link. Proto||type 16:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that "all information is in other articles"? David Sneek 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all above. Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm not aware of the servers nearing capacity.....Jcuk 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid sub-page, along with all of the others for HK. "...available via the external link." is a terrible argument. This is Wikipedia, not Google. Turnstep 19:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valid subtopic. mikka (t) 21:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and it's an interesting article. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• clean it up and keep it! Sparsefarce 00:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Argh. This might have been better dealt with as a redirect to avoid this discussion. I'd normally defer to the nominator, especially when one looks at the histories of the pages and sees whom the major contributors are. However the "keep and cleanup without ever editing the page" bloc appears to have spoken, so I'll say "delete but barring that merge (oh wait that's already done and oh, but this isn't a useful redirect) so bugger." - brenneman^{L} 02:23, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 02:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James McDougall[edit]

Delete. I am proposing this article be deleted because the person to whom it refers is of questionable importance in warranting a biographical entry, there is little information in it of interest beyond the name and the individual's connection with the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 (an existing article in which this information could be, and in fact is offered), and because the article conflicts with what I consider a more important historical figure, the explorer James McDougall (explorer) Fishhead64 00:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He's a central figure in a major event, and he is linked to from the Flight 103 page. The article should be marked as a stub and possibly expanded. Carlo 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and significant, and Move to James McDougall (Lockerbie) or some such other name, as appropriate. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Move to James McDougall (Procurator Fiscal) and make James McDougall a disamb page.Eivind^t@c 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable enough. Weatherman90 02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 03:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not convinced that this guy is notable enough to have his own article. What more is there to say about him? A brief mention in the Flight 103 article seems sufficient. Plus, as the nominator points out, he is hogging valuable namespace that rightfully belongs to the much more notable James McDougall (explorer). dbtfz^talk 05:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article should be expanded. Any conflict with the article, if it exists, about McDougall the explorer can be remedied by disambiguation.Phase4 10:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Seems like the Lockerbie article should more than take care of him, but a stronger article might make a difference. ProhibitOnions 10:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to more suitably named page and convert to disambiguation. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:02, 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 03:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3055 (number)[edit]

Delete as a non-notable number as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers criteria. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was put on ((Prod)), which was deleted immediately by the creator of the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - NN StephenFalken 00:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. You have got to be kidding. Carlo 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DE1E7E = 14,556,798 converted into decimal notation. Redirect to 14,556,798. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No offense to Leet fans, but this vote reminds me of those people who spell "Boobies" in their calculators. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per the numbers WikiProject. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per wikinumbers. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Czar Dragon 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above arguments . Reyk 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. But seriously... Deizio 02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but its not as bad as some other year-articles I have seen. We have articles for each year going WAYYY to far into the future. Weatherman90 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a number, not a year. Specific guidelines or policy on years might be different. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WikiProject. This will definitely grow larger. --Terence Ong 03:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Joelito 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's just a number. JIP | Talk 07:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A number, not a year yet, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers.--Dakota ~ ° 08:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not listed on List of numbers or linked to by any mathematical page. Non-notable number, whatever that might be. ProhibitOnions
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 3000 (number). — RJH 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I will be the sole inclusionist vote on this one, I guess. 3055 is a verifiable number that can be proven to exist. That's more than you can say about 99% of Wikipedia articles. Prove to me that Saddam Hussein exists ... ohh that's right, you can't. But the existence of the number 3055 follows directly from the fundamental arithematic axions. Cyde Weys 17:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is an infinity of numbers, but there's no space for an infinity of articles. Thus existence alone is not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. TheJabberwock 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but there aren't infinite four-digit numbers. In fact, there's not so many of them. --Cyde Weys 06:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you seriously want to extend the ceiling on number articles with no signifigance, you might want to shoot for three digits first, not four. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. There's a real chance that you'll get your way, but I have to say it's small. Melchoir 07:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We could ask the developers to have the server autogenerate an article page for every request of the form "N (number)", where "N" stands for a non-empty sequence of decimal digits. That way Wikipedia will have an infinite number of articles! Lambiam^Talk 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'll join you on this one Cyde. Did you see what that number is in hex? And its found in quite of few lists of integers. Pretty significant stuff I'd say. --BostonMA 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's "BEF" in hex. How is that any more notable than "BEE" (i.e. Bee or 3054), which doesn't have an article? Ral315 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bee already has its own page. Why would it need another one? --BostonMA 21:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few lists? Are you aware that OEIS currently contains 116943 lists and counting? Being in only 41 is pathetic. Melchoir 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's notable because it is in only 41 lists. Lambiam^Talk 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into a Wikiproject Numbers subsection of "non-notable numbers" or something. Let it incubate in there for awhile. To me, numbers are inherently notable, although most of them don't have alot of content you can say about them, usually not enough for an article of their own. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 18:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia has enough articles about subjects without any real-world existence. As Leopold Kronecker said, "God made the integers, all else is the work of man"; and while the underlying theological debate can't be resolved, the existence and singular importance of integers should be clear. Monicasdude 18:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 3000 (number) (which probably ought to be 3000s (number). It's a charming article, but if we keep it we have to let everyone make an article about their favourite number. Peter Grey 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WikiProject criteria. Note that BostonMA has been campaigning for "keep" votes. --Carnildo 19:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT (indiscriminate collection of information) and because of the spam from BostonMA. ---J.Smith 19:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and shame on BostonMA for spamming in favor of keeping this. Ral315 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. mikka (t) 21:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pa Computerjoe's talk 21:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the factorization is useful, even if it is trivial. Although arguably that would be wikimath.org or something, but as that has yet to exist, most numbers tend to have certain properties in number theory which are encyclopedic to describe. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every integer has a factorization. Melchoir 03:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might want to do a little bit more research on that (unless you're counting the trivial case of the number itself and one). --Cyde Weys 06:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am. And prime numbers are hardly trivial; if this number were prime, it would be more notable than it is now. Still deleteable though. Melchoir 07:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my argument above. TheJabberwock 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge it to a list of numbers in the 3000 range. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Come on, gang. It's easy enough to prove that all positive integers are notable. They're well-ordered. If there were non-notable integers, they'd form a set. Then that set would have a least element. And being the smallest non-notable positive integer would, of course, be notable. And that's a contradiction. So there can't be any non-notable positive integers. So there. Monicasdude 01:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: How silly. Was this article created to make some point? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it had any unique properties in number theory, as Natalinasmpf describes, then it should have an article, but otherwise, there comes a point where details are too trivial to include. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3055 is the unique integer between 3054 and 3056. It is also the unique product of 611 and 5. Michael Jackson doesn't even have a unique name people seem to think he is notable enough for an article. --BostonMA 23:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing to write a permastub on every integer? Melchoir 03:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --hydnjo talk 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (or merge per Bookofjude, inter al.) (although I always have wondered about what comes between 3054 and 3056; I always thought it was 12). Joe 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the obvious consensus above. This should've been deleted already. Cool3 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. So it's boring, so what? It is just a number, but it has various mathematical properties associated with it. One thing my education taught me about math is that it's too complicated for me to understand. There's probably a lot you could write about this single number. People complain about how you could go on writing about numbers forever, since they're infinite. That's obviously true, but I'm not going to complain if that means we end up with millions, billions, or even trillions of number articles. Bring 'em on. To me this is like a guy who inherits a big pile of money and complains: "That's too much, I can never count all that..." A little wisdom tells you it's nonsense to worry about such things. Also, a number could potentially fall into an automatically notable category, like natural species in biology, natural languages, planets, stars, that kind of thing: just by existing it has some notability attached to it, since it's automatically going to have some scientific significance. Everyking 06:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every species, language, planet, and star on Wikipedia has already been written about elsewhere; otherwise we wouldn't know about it. Nobody has written anything about 3055. You propose that we could make up stuff to write about 3055; that's called original research. It is not the job of an encyclopedia. Melchoir 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anything that is patently provable using the laws of mathematics can be considered "original research". Mathematics is really an entirely different realm than the rest of the encyclopedia because in mathematics things can be and are proven 100%. --Cyde Weys 08:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the contrary, the history of mathematics is full of incorrect proofs and assertions; now, even after a theorem is proven, often it is not accepted without reservation. Whether a mathematical statement is "really" true or not, Wikipedia requires verification of its proof. Now, I am aware that in practice, mathematics pages contain some trivial original research, especially number articles, and we tend to look the other way. But an entire article filled with the stuff, and using it as a justification to exist, is completely and absolutely unacceptable. Melchoir 08:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no such thing as an incorrect proof. Either a proof is a proof or it contains logical errors in which case it's not a proof at all. Can you provide any references for the kind of stuff you're talking about? --Cyde Weys 08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Classification of finite simple groups, Four color theorem, Fermat's last theorem. Melchoir 09:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You know, I was almost going to say, "And don't say Fermat's last theorem", in my post you just responded to. I had actually typed it out and thought better of it and deleted that part. You do know all Fermat did was saying that he "proved" it without offering up any evidence whatsoever, right? --Cyde Weys 09:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, I know. Asserting the existence of a proof is, sadly, not the same thing as having a proof. We Wikipedians, being a wiser sort, prefer to demand verification. Melchoir 09:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fermat claimed to have a proof, but didn't offer it. Andrew Wiles actually did have a proof, but his first version was incorrect. --Carnildo 05:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody has written anything about this number? How can that be? Recently I read about this kid who was able to recite pi out to over 8,000 digits...nobody has ever factored out the number 3055 before, or written its Roman numeral, and published it somewhere? Everyking 08:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are welcome to look for a source. Melchoir 09:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I won't pretend to be able to interpret it, but is this a source? It's linked right there in the article. Everyking 10:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a database query generated by computer and input by the author of the article. If that counts as a reference, you might as well have an "article" on every phrase in the English language by referencing Google searches. Melchoir 18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Silliness. linas 21:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Obvious reasons Nigelthefish 15:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WikiProject Numbers. Looking through the OEIS, it's in maybe two interesting lists. The number has no special properties unlike other existing number articles - it's not prime, perfect, square, culturally significant (see, for example, 42 (number) or 1138 (number), a taxicab number, triangular, or any of a large number of interesting, verifiable properties held by most of the numbers which have articles. In other words, unencyclopedic. Confusing Manifestation 03:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --C S (Talk) 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete otherwise we'll be on our 2millionth article quicker than we though. Carlossuarez46 00:35, 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 SPEEDY KEEP. Harro5 05:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television news music package[edit]

Seems to be unverified original research. Surely this should be merged somewhere else, or has been covered previously, but it currently seems unencyclopedic. Harro5 00:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather unusual that I only created this file just a few minutes before and already an AfD stamp had already been placed. I created the file after I was left a message by somebody (I can't remember their user name), but they said that I would be a good candidate to create such an article, so I created it. I had created other articles revolving around news music and when I was "enlisted", so to speak, to create an article about the subject, I took the chance and went with it, you know. But if anybody can gather information as I'm trying to on this subject, put it in. TmanokoTmanok 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I saw what looked like a strange and waffling list, but didn't know the history. At least it wasn't speedied out of haste. Harro5 05:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep this seems like a reasonable article. it's not really original research to simply state that some channels use particular melodic lines for their news programs and describe how they do so. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tmanok. The nom also seems unclear and suggests a merge but provides no target. I think engaging the author before tagging the article two minutes after creation might have provided some clarification. -- JJay 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an important part of the branding of television. Eivind^t@c 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, requested in connection with another AfD discussion to provide context and as a possible umbrella replacement for a set of mostly boilerplate small articles. Monicasdude 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but clarify soem of the terminology being used. Denni ☯ 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as encyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I suggested the creation of this article. We already had a whole Category:Television news music packages, about individual news music packages and their composers. I thought we should have a background article explaining what they were. Smerdis of Tlön 04:30, 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 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cashville Records[edit]

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

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This nom seems more about the content of the article rather than that it exists. Cashville records seems notable enough on a quick google test. The content about lil-scrappy conflicts with other sources though. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, don't really see a reason to delete this. Stifle 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Is there a real question about its accuracy? "I don't think B.G. would do that" is really not much to go on. Carlo 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no assertion of notability in the article. 3 recording artists without a sigificant release between them does not an notable record label make. Who are these people? Why are they notable? Deizio 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Um, Young buck is one of the more popular modern gangsta rappers out there. I don't particularly like him, but HIGHLY notable: his singles have plenty of radio airtime ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable enough. Asked my 23 year old son as well and he indicated that he had heard of them.
• Keep, I have no knowledge of anything about the music industry, but after hearing the above arguments, it seems its notable enough --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Young Buck is notable but that doesn't mean Cashville Records are. MLA 12:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 21:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Right now I'm listening to a song called "Straight out of Ca$hville" released on Cashville records, by Young Buck, Ludacris, and the Game. If that's not notable (the 3 arguably hottest currently producing names in hip-hop) then I don't know what is. Young Buck is a rap star. Not just an average rapper, but a star. His label, therefore is also notable. Also, it's a derivative from G-Unit/Interscope Records, what anyone would consider a highly notable group. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but cleanup and expand. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but fix accuracy to align with G-Unit / Interscope Records. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Alexa rank of web site is >600,000. WP:N [1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was 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]

• Delete the show being discussed is Zane Lowe's radio show; its not called Gonzo, which is the name of his MTV show; the article is a poor stub at best; info about the show can fit into the Zane Lowe page anyway. Robdurbar 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and Rewrite The MTV show Gonzo probably (just about) deserves a page, but this is poorly written and wrongly titled. DWaterson 20:11, 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]

• Delete, after merging to Zane Lowe. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Zane Lowe. Then redirect. Merge then delete is not an option under the GFDL. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:52, 26 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]

• delete. as nom. ... aa:talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Non-notable as it may seem to you, it is a VERY notable parser - possibly the best, most flexible etc. I started this article when I tried to find out more about GOLD and was surprised to find no article about it. Just because people aren't contributing to the article doesn't mean it's non-notable. It is notable. Because it's not commercial it doesn't have a strong marketing arm to make people more aware of it I guess. To those of you who are voting on the AFD, please don't just say "delete" because you haven't heard of GOLD. Donama 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you verifiably explain the claim to fame per WP:SOFTWARE? Weregerbil 12:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if GOLD would pass the WP:SOFTWARE popularity contest, though I don't have access to information on all those points - the development team is not numbering into the thousands yet though - < 400 - so Wikipedia will have to wait a few years to have this article. In light of this Spirit Parser Framework should probably also be in AFD. Donama 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not helpful to say "well if this should be deleted so should so-and-so." If that's the case, list that for AfD. But it's not germaine to this discussion. ... aa:talk 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Allow me to rephrase: Spirit Parser Framework is considered notable enough to deserve and article. GOLD as an analogous topic therefore deserves one too. Donama 08:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have no evidence of course, but asserting that GOLD has at least 5000 users seems safe (gets referenced consistently up to page 10 in google) MadCow257 02:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there's a dispute over its notability, it probably doesn't deserve to be here ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 03:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. I can't understand this: 9 words (counted is, an also) in article and at least few lines in AfD. --MaNeMeBasat 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. Redirect to Gold to dissuade from recreation. Proto||type 13:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kuzaar 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE and redirect to Gold (disambiguation) 132.205.45.110 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if the parser is notable, it should have its own article and be linked to from Gold (disambiguation). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless someone can come up with a notable project using it. Haikupoet 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Confusingly, someone has changed this page without using the move tool so it's a disambig and the article in contention is at GOLD (parser). At the same time they've done a good job of adding content to the article about GOLD the parser. It might need to be relisted to really ensure a consensus on this one. I still say Keep. It's notable in my world, but may just be a well-kept secret in the parsing development community. Donama 08:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete asserting an arbitrary and unsourced amount of users does not make GOLD notable. All an unverifiable claim to notability accomplishes is an AfD discussion rather than a speedy. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:08, 26 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 03:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested Expression[edit]

I had listed this to go to Wiktionary, but a new edit shows the word was coined only last year, and this is a memorial to a neologism and its creator. Per WP:NOT, this is not a memorial, a dictionary, a place for original inventions, and this also comes close to Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Harro5 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Contested Expression" is an excellent way to describe the activities of graffiti, street art, skateboarding and etc. Simply because respect was shown to the person who coined the phrase is not sufficient reason to remove it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintergoddess (talk • contribs)

• Delete NN. The phrase doesn't seem to google at all, except as cases where the two words just appear consecutively in a sentence. The phrase returns 0 Ghits when combined with the name of the person who supposedly coined the phrase. Fan1967 03:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete having skated, and grown up around taggers, highly non-notable. Not for things you made up in school one day. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article even says it's a protologism; even if it is truly by a college instructor, WP:NFT seems to apply here. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-admitted protologism. JIP | Talk 07:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nice try, but no Google. ProhibitOnions
• Delete. A neologism with an inherent POV problem. Smerdis of Tlön 15:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above.--Ugur Basak 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not for things your teacher made up in school one day. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:08, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Could Work Records[edit]

Prod contested, seems like an AFD was attempted but never got closed and the AFD was removed from the article. Fails WP:CORP, WP:Music. NN. Delete Dbchip 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable record label with no media coverage. The only Google hits are to MySpace or Wikipedia. PROD contested. FCYTravis 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable corporation. nn unincorporated entity. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Could Work Records is not organized as a corporation and should not be considered under the corporate notability guidelines. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The subject matter is highly relevant to the North Dakota cultural scene, which has suffered from poor media coverage due to systemic biases that overlook smaller communities. Artists booked to the label will be completing tours in the United States this month, making them notable under WP:MUSIC; the label is similarly notable.

  The MySpace hits should not be discounted, but instead taken for what they are, an indication that This Could Work Records is slowly growing in relevance to social circles, enough so that Lonegunmun decided to register a Wikipedia account to start an article on it. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The systemic bias of ignoring a "record label" with 13 MySpace hits? Maybe you could point to a mention in any one of these media sources in South Dakota? A college newspaper, even? You're telling me there's a systemic bias at the University of North Dakota journalism department? Puh-leeze. FCYTravis 23:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN. An organization, company, unincorporated entity, whatever, that generates a grand total of 13 hits on myspace and none anywhere else is about as unnoteable as you can get. Fan1967 23:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fan1967. Come back when you've signed some notable bands. Stifle 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have nothing against this article. This label seems to be gaining in prominence and I think it is unfortunate to see users so eager to delete articles which do have something informative to offer. --MatthewUND^(talk) 10:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Systemic bias argument is ridiculous, this is nn record label. Bluelinked "projects" in article also suspicious. Deizio 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn record label. JoshuaZ 02:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete North Dakota HAS a cultural scene? j/k, but still non-notable ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I try to look sympathetically on "alternative" music ventures, they can be notable without selling truckloads of records. This one, however, seems to have hardly got started and is right now thoroughly nn. --kingboyk 09:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, regrettably. Startup label, no product except for a sampler LP. That makes it NN. ProhibitOnions 11:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MatthewUND. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a startup without any releases of note. Eivind^t@c 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. mikka (t) 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, weakly. Non-notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and reaffirmed Keep. There are at least a dozen record labels in Category:2005 establishments, all with invariably small discographies. If Silvery Moon Records can have an article, there's no reason why This Could Work Records should not either.

  I must also express concern over the bias against North Dakota expressed by certain editors in this AFD. Diminishing the cultural achievements of a part of the world does not further the goals of an objective, comprehensive encyclopedia. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just because other companies that are similarly unqualified for an article on WP haven't been deleted yet doesn't justify this one. Dbchip 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I don't see any such bias. Could you please point it out? JoshuaZ 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response SWATJester has made it readily obvious he does not take this to be serious subject matter. FCYTravis has also made many uninformed allegations against this article; He confuses North and South Dakota and is apparently unaware of the fact that the University of North Dakota has no accredited journalism department and the campus newspaper is about as focused on Minot happenings as the Chicago Tribune is on Milwaukee. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Swatjester made one comment which he noted was a joke, given that and you claim that bias was expressed by "editors" plural, I have trouble seeing that. Your other comments, i.e. not being aware of the nature of the local newspaper and confusing N and S hardly constitute evidence of bias. Now, there specific conditions for WP:MUSIC. Instead of claiming bias, your best bet to get the article kept is to show that it fits those conditions. JoshuaZ 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My claim that the article should remain based upon the fact that artists on the label have completed national tours in the United States has yet to be disputed. I would also maintain that This Could Work Records Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city, as Minot, North Dakota has no other indie/punk record labels. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment It would be helpful if you could give us a citation for their completion of national tours. JoshuaZ 06:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:CORP, red link cruft. Royboycrashfan 06:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cruft^{cruft}. --Deville (Talk) 06:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you mean ${\displaystyle Cruft^{cruft))$ perhaps? JoshuaZ 06:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Daah, I've been TeXing too much these days. How about ${\displaystyle e^{CRUFT\,\ln(CRUFT)))$? w00t --Deville (Talk) 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Maybe you can find a North Dakota wiki and add it there? Or if that doesn't exist, start one at Wikicities. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 10:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hasn't been mentioned in any ND newspaper, or anywhere for that matter. Ashibaka tock 13:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN company. Or even a NNND company. Marcus22 15:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn. Eusebeus 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:56, 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 del. mikka (t) 19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mental game[edit]

Unhelpful pseudo-category for games that are better classified elsewhere, like in Word game and Guessing game. There may eventually be a reason for this page to exist, but this isn't it. phh 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. no inherent problems with the page. the mental games referenced are suspect but the page itself makes some sense by explaining the nature of the games. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All of the examples listed on this page can be (and already have been) placed into a better established category, except for The Game (game), whose status as an actual game is debatable. Article is unnecessary. WarpstarRider 00:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. The fact that certain games require no equipment to be played (and hence can be played anywhere and at any time) is an important and useful distinction. Please read the more neutral rewrite of The Game (game), its debatability as a game is due to a misunderstanding of the rules. Kernow 12:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, category is sufficient. Stifle 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Del. Non-notable definition/construct. Czar Dragon 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Listcruft. Contradicts itself into the bargain (is it mental games or mind games?). Lists should contain significant and substantive info that would not be held in a category, this doesn't do it. Deizio 11:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but should definitely be a category. JoshuaZ 02:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 08:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft, categorisation will be better. --Terence Ong 08:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, lists are more user-friendly than categories, and it should be crosslinked to the other similar lists of games. ProhibitOnions 11:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kernow. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deiz. Categories are, if anything, more user friendly than lists, as only the articles need to be kept up to date. With a list, not only do the articles need to be up to date, so does the list. Proto||type 16:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very nice job on this list, which is so much better than a category it hurts my brain. -- JJay 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. mikka (t) 23:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or convert to an actual category/list. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:11, 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 03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Works Of Mika Feldy[edit]

An article about some short stories by the author, whose self-bio down the bottom would be CSD A7 if separated, with no hint of them being notable. I'd say this is blatant self-promotion, going against Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Harro5 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete apparent vanity. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • CommentI the writer of this article claim that I am not useing this for self promotion but am simply useing this for those interested in extra information about my compilation of short stories or for those wanting to know more. If I wanted to promote myself, the article would probably give you a seisure as I have a habit of overdoing my advertisements. Please do not delete my article, it is form informative, not advertising, purposes. What can I change or add to make it seem more informative? Mika Feldy
• Delete - nn, vanity. >> Hi Mika? Wikipedia has sets of criteria and guidelines for what is and isn't suitable for inclusion. It may be that your page isn't a keeper, please check out WP:BIO (especially the line: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more") for info regarding authors and WP:DEL for general deletion policy info. Deizio 02:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That policy is a bit strict. What if a writer didn't have an audience of 5,000? We just leave them out and call them "unimportant"? Take a hint, everybody deserves a bit of recognition in today's day and age. Who cares if the audience is 3 or 3,000,000? You're singling people out Wiki... - Midnight

• Comment Wikipedia has guidelines and policies for exactly this kind of case. Who cares if it has a readership of 3? An encyclopedia should damn well care. Wikipedia is not a weblog or personal page. If Wikipedia is guilty of "singling out" completely unnotable writers then count me in. WP:DEL. If it is going to be published then cross your fingers and WP:CHILL in the meantime. Deizio 03:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity, nn author. 14 Ghits (as Mika Haruhara (Feldy)) [2], all of which appear to be his own postings on sites like geocities and invisionfree. Fan1967 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whoops, sorry. I got the gender wrong. I've previously run into "Mika" as a man's name (Finnish) and didn't read carefully enough. My apologies. Fan1967 14:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is informative, and I actually didn't know some of these things until I read this article. It's informative, and it varifies certain information. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to do right? From what I can tell, its in threat of being deleted because not enough people look at it. Have you even given it time? Or a chance? You can't expect people to linch onto something in five minutes. People might want this in the future. Don't delete. - Maki

• Delete. Per nom. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • CommentI would also like to note that this was put up for deletion BEFORE the articlewas finished. The article is now finished completley. Mika Feldy
• Delete even with complete version above still stands. JoshuaZ 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is very informative, because i've read the article and I see that this writer Mika has quite potential to become a good artist. I think this shouldn't be deleted because if more people find this article and see the works of Mika then she could grow out to quite a succes. Give Mika a chance, im sure she will get more viewers and that this article will grow out with importantence. -[Z0diac]

• Delete. Non-notable per WP:BIO, impossible to satisfy WP:V, and is likely WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notable self-promotion --MaNeMeBasat 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn-bio, unverifiable, self promotion. --Terence Ong 09:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, as this might have attained notability in Japan, something I am unable to verify. Even so, it's a vanity piece that would be better organized under an article about the author. ProhibitOnions 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all of the above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,per the original nom. Kuru ^talk 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm as impatient as hell, I have e-mailed Wikipedia about the deletion of this article. They claim that the descision to delete it is not determined by requests but by the editing comity, so are any of you from the eidting comity? The e-mail says "Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia written by its readers. The subjects for our articles are chosen by the editing community rather than by request." Meaning that if anything we should wait for the eidting community to stop by here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika Feldy (talk • contribs)

Yes, we are all part of the editing community. Everyone at wikipedia is an editor. You may want to look at the Wikipedia intro page and related pages. JoshuaZ 20:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that the choice to delete is not based on any judgement on the quality of your work. Rather, it is the intent of Wikipedia to document well-known people, not provide exposure for those who wish to become well-known. The policy is described in WP:BIO. Postings by people attempting to publicize themselves are generally subject to heavy scrutiny, but if someone else had created this article I doubt the response would be any different. By the way, you can sign your comments by adding four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your post. Fan1967 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long do I have to wait before it is "decided"? When can I get rid of this delete message? Mika Feldy 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For more details on the AfD process, you may want to see the relevant page linked here: WP:AFD. JoshuaZ 05:33, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Monkey Poop Fight[edit]

A Flash game created some time this year found here. Is it notable? Are there respectable sources concerning this game? I don't think so, just one of the many non-notable newgrounds quality flash out there. - Hahnchen 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought it's high google score would allow it to stay on Wikipedia. --Nintendude 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you removed the PROD earlier because of this. I had a look on Google, and it just looks like the flash has been pasted all over various Flash mirrors. I couldn't find any strong fan following like say Salad Fingers or critical reaction from established sources like EPIC 2014. - Hahnchen 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Del. Czar Dragon 01:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as original PROD'er. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn and they're apes not monkeys. Eivind^t@c 03:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Relatively notable, as I've played it before seeing this ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn software. Feezo (Talk) 03:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn software, its nothing more than an advertisement really, oh and the game sucks i tried it. Mike _{(T C)} 05:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete tried the game, loved it, esp. the baby dropping part. My wife was terrified though :) :) the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just another Flash game = non-notable per software guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable flash game --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn game. --Terence Ong 10:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 11:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I wasn't sure whether or not to put this up or not, but since someone else did I'd say DELETED! -- gakon5 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely non-notable flash game. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can SMPF retain nn status when it's google score goes above 1,000? --Nintendude 10:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noticed that the alexa rating for the official website is not in the top 100,000, but despite that, I am still baffled by why 1000+ google hits dosen't merit notability on the game. --Nintendude 00:30, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chandre Dharma-wardana[edit]

Seems like he is a good scientist, but I don't see how he passes the professor test. There are many Principal Research Officers (looks equivalent to full professor) at NRC Canada [3], and even I was in Who's Who Canada. For what it's worth, 52 unique Ghits [4]. "Ceylon Leather Products and Tannery" gives no hits. There are many more notable academics, don't think he meets WP:BIO or the professor test Samir (the scope) 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom -- Samir (the scope) 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep passes notability Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I can't see it doing any harm, seems fairly notable. Weatherman90 01:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, current article does not assert compliance with WP:BIO or professor test. Deizio 02:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, solid credentials, decent publication record, appears to be viewed as notable to those in his narrow but important field. And even if the "professor test" was ever more than a proposed guideline, a Cambridge PhD in quantum physics is usually pretty notable. Monicasdude 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has many publications, some in prestigious journals: [5]. JoshuaZ 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep pending verification that he is indeed a professor ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks notable. --Terence Ong 10:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — passes the professor test. Feezo (Talk) 11:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable but you wouldn't know it from this weak bio. ProhibitOnions 11:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Monicasdude. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no, there are a tonne of no name academics like him. His publications are all in minor journals (mainly impact factor <2). He's one of many researchers in solid state physics, and he doesn't stand out among the crowd. He's working at a lesser institution in Canada (NRC, not even an academic institution) and he's an adjunct professor at Montreal. I think that it was a page made by one of his post docs. Monicadude, Cambridge solid state physics = 15 PhD's per year, I can't see how that alone makes you notable. Barry Zuckerkorn 18:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep, as per the above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:15, 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 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel halperin[edit]

Non-notable bio written by User:Dhalperin. Some claim to notability in founding United Consumer Finance Network (11 google hits) and United Consumer Mortgage (4 google hits). Contested speedy, and talk page says, Who are you to say that I am not notable? I have been published in trade journals and my biography is relevant. Deletion is unncessary. Clearly doesn't mean WP:BIO. Delete. bikeable (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and redundant, since it's largely a reprint of his User page. Perhaps he had intended it as a User Page, and made a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfortunato (talk • contribs)

• Delete (I think the talk page rules out the possibility of it being a mistake, but that's neither here nor there). --DMG413 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit history by (aeropagitica) says, Article has been userfied and deleted twice already. bikeable (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Protect if he keeps recreating it. NN Fan1967 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Protect per Fan1967. JoshuaZ 02:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know; one day one plays in the "Midwest Suburban Baseball League" and the next day he/she is a household name. In all seriousness, delete and protect per Fan. Joe 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Protect per above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and ((deletedpage)) per above. Already deleted once via AfD at [6] as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect as recreated text, nn. --Terence Ong 10:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and ((deletedpage)). User has had sufficient time to read links related to biographical articles.  (aeropagitica)  12:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect: vanity and advertising. Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and deletedpage, per Kinu. Kuzaar 16:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and ((deletedpage)). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and deletedpage --Ugur Basak 01:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, per above - recreated article. Kuru ^talk 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:20, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Holcomb[edit]

Delete - the subject was briefly in the news almost 3 years ago. There have been many, many cases of soldiers returning to the US then refusing to go back. This individual decided to tell the media. It's self generated "notability." Nothing more was written about this after she was reassigned to Fort Carson, and probably nothing else ever will be. Nobunaga24 01:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~Delete per nom. Weatherman90 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Del. Czar Dragon 01:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Self-generated notability" is notability, and is the norm rather than the exception. She fought the law, and the law lost, and isn't that notable enough, too? Monicasdude 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not that notable, but notable enough. --DMG413 03:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Will anyone care about this person in 100 years? 100 minutes? Does anyone care now? I doubt it. dbtfz^talk 05:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Dbtfz... couldn't have put it better myself. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep marginally notable in the greater scheme of things. ProhibitOnions 11:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep although article could be cleaned/expaned. It may be a precedent of some small significance. Bondegezou 14:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as someone featured by major news sources. Turnstep 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. If we're going to delete people who are self-notable, let's start with Angelyne. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep more news articles about him than there are about me. Sparsefarce 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, borders on notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, might have some historical interest, but no context is provided in the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:23, 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 keep. bainer (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario T Barri[edit]

Unverified stub about a supposed Filipino movie director (ie, directing Filipino movies, not that he is Filipino - there's no way of telling that, as he is unverifiable). There is a Filipino actor called Mario Barri, who should have an article yet doesn't. Unfortunately, there's no way of telling if telling for sure that this refers to the same person, and I don't think guesswork is appropriate. I'm noting that this article is for a director, and Mario Barri (with no T) was an actor, which also weighs against this being the same guy. Anyway, back on track. This fails WP:V, which is the bare minimum requirement for any article. Ergo, delete. Please note that this AfD in no way implies that non-Western 1950s pop culture people are any less (or more) notable than their Western counterparts, because God knows that's always the first accusation when you try and AfD an unverifiable and ugly hellpit of redlinks. Proto||type 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless verified and cleaned up. -- Krash (Talk) 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Original author created many small articles which met the the-current verifiability policy. WP:V does not require online sources, and enough of the already-contested pages have proved accurate. Whatever the AfD nominator may say, the consequences of this campaign is to exclude large swathes of non-Western popular culture from Wikipedia by the moral equivalent of Wikilawyering -- and the same standard hasn't been applied retroactively to recent Western popular cultrue articles. And I don't see any "hellpit of redlinks" listed among the valid criteria for deletion; if they bother you that much, just unlink them. So fix it. Monicasdude 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a reference can be provided then I will happily withdraw the nomination. Note that I am actively trying to create articles on Filipino film here (see, for example, Giliw Ko), not delete 'swathes of non-Western popular culture'. If an article has no references, then, unfortunately, we do have to rely upon online sources. All articles must be verifiable. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Mario Barri is a well known filipino actor and director. One of his claims to fame being that he gave Fernando Poe, Jr. his first big break. All of his films are verifiable on the net. For example here where he is clearly listed as director. [7]. Of course, this demands some effort and knowledge, because Manila is not Hollywood. On a side note, I see the same articles nominated, prodded, then renominated. Once again, I say there is no reason to destroy our incipient coverage of the Filipino film industry. The denigration of other cultures needs to stop. -- JJay 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, if a reference to Mario T Barri can be provided then I will happily withdraw the nomination. There is no verifiable proof that this is the same person. This is a similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herminio Bautista - all articles must be verifiable. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep verifiability claims made by Monicasdude and JJay hold up. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If JJay says it must be so. Herostratus 02:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:52Z
  • Comment I'm sorry, but is it verifiable? There's not a single reference. You can't say 'no, this is verifiable', and then fail to provide a single reference or source. At the moment, it's verifiable because JJay and Monicasdude say it is. Again, if there's one single reference provided, I will withdraw this nomination, happily. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJay and Monicasdude Jcuk 22:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why is the reference above not good enough? Or the IMDB page [8]? Or all the google hits? [9]. The nom refuses to accept any evidence and has repeatedly tried to delete this page based on a middle initial. I can't believe that justifies extending this debate. -- JJay 01:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of movies attributed to Mario T Barri in this article does not seem to correspond at all with the list of movies attributed to Mario Barri on IMDB. Like I said... there just seem to be some issues here that have yet to be addressed. --W.marsh 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's quite strange. Most of the movies listed in the article appear nowhere on IMDB. The ones that do don't mention Barri, but they are largely devoid of credits. "Anak ni Palaris" (Anak ng Palaris in imdb) doesn't mention Barri, but does mention Fernando Poe. Other film names appear to be spelled wrong ("Song of Sto. Thomas"). It looks like somebody made an article about a legitimate figure with a lot of questionable or downright false information. Can it be kept and throughly re-edited by somebody who actually knows about this person's career? Carlo 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Everyone knows that Barri directed Anak ni Palaris. I mentioned that above and the info was included in all of the FPJ obits such as this [10]. -- JJay 02:10, 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 03:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The People United[edit]

Fails to meet WP:WEB. SupahDupah 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as outrageous FanCruft, ForumCruft & WebCruft. "Since its creation in 2004, it has grown abrubtly". Thats just wonderful. Oh, another: "Katie and Jeffy of A-F Records, Spaz, and chris#2 are all active members." Remarkable. Deizio 02:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Grown abruptly"? What an odd thing to say. Anyway, does not even come close to satisfying WP:WEB. Reyk 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete vanity cruft nonsense ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Alexa rank of around 1.5 million. — TKD::Talk 05:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, above. ProhibitOnions 11:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity fancruft. Possibly deserves a mention on Anti-Flag's external links. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above --Ugur Basak 01:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Mr. Deizio above. No WP:WEB. Kuru ^talk 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sorry, spaz and chris#2, it's nothing personal. --phh 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete However I will link on Anti-Flag external links. Nigelthefish 17:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or not, it's already there. Nigelthefish 17:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LordTrox[edit]

I came across this while sorting stubs for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force. It reads like an advertisement, has no references, no Wikilinks, and hasn't improved since November. No assertion of notability either - so it might qualify for a speedy as a vanity entry. I'll list it here since I'm not sure role-playing games can be speedied. Durova 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. Seems to be a mislabeled article on some RPG that I can't even find anywhere. Fan1967 02:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense, vanity, nn-club. Is it an ad for some kind of RPG? I don't know. Kiss it goodbye Deizio 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an ad for somebody's home-grown MUD. Durova 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Goodness me. How has this survived for so long? Reyk 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - idiotic Nobunaga24 02:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per deizio ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At best it's an advert for a non-notable RPG. PJM 03:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - copy-and-paste job from the non-notable Medieval Times MUD page, which was hosted at Lord Trox.com (now redirects to Times Mud.com). Green Giant 04:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Get medieval on this article and delete it. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per all Bucketsofg 04:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, utter WP:VSCA garbage. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons given above. ProhibitOnions 11:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Non-notable, vanity, advertisement, and copyvio, considering it's a cut and paste job. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How could something this stupid survive so long. Didn't anyone see it sooner? Tobyk777 05:50, 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 Speedy delete --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NAMELESS THING OF BERKELEY SQUARE[edit]

Individual poltergeists don't seem particularly notable, so up for a vote it goes. 13 Google hits. DMG413 02:17, 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 speedy delete as a group with no claim to notability. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie_Hittler[edit]

Delete -- this group is not notable Steve 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - CSD A7, non notable group, tagged. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Darkness. JoshuaZ 02:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per lightdarkness ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, A7, as tagged. PJM 03:28, 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 04:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GatorAider[edit]

Non-notable new student orientation organization at SFSU. Delete. DMG413 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn student org. And one would think that University students would be able to write better. JoshuaZ 02:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, patently non-notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's one of those days. ProhibitOnions 11:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as quickly as possible. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Triage 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nigelthefish 17:06, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goanet[edit]

Hi - this comes across as a promotional article without any encyclopedic value. Rama's Arrow 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhhh head hurts. Damn, it really has a go at convincing you, doesn't it? Umm.. gee... (damn).. Neutral as a long established and popular board used worldwide it approaches the bar but it's totally one sided and I would have to see a convincing media coverage link. Deizio 03:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable Alexa ranking of 1,604,204. Green Giant 04:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't seem very notable per above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If someone can get a sociological paper published in a peerreviewed journal on it we can have an article on it. Gomes, Alberto G. (2001) ‘Going Goan on the Goa-Net: Computer-mediated Communication and Goan Diaspora’. Social Analysis 45 (1), pp.53-66. Google scholar finds two citations of it. Certainly could use POV cleanup though. kotepho 19:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep after major cleanup. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep after major cleanup. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:30, 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 speedy deletion, CSD A7, by DakotaKahn. — TheKMan^talk 06:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southover Bonfire Society[edit]

nn organization Where ^(talk) 03:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 03:38, 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 Move to Shed Hunting. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinting[edit]

Neologism. Can find no references to "clint" or "clinting". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add that in the external link provided at Hunting it is called "Shed Hunting" and not clinting. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete shed hunting is also known as Clinting.
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. [11]. PJM 03:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete I believe that the article should not be deleted as I live in Prescott, Arizona and have heard the reference numerous times.

"Don't delete" I I believe that the article should not be deleted as I live in Carlsbad, California and I have heard the refrence before. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.180.4.74 (talk • contribs) .

• Changed opinion Move to Shed hunting as per this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:38, 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 04:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marripalem[edit]

Hi - this one-liner's topic is totally undefined. Rama's Arrow 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but only b/c I cannot find it on the city map. If somebody produces another map which shows this neighborhood, I'll change my vote. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I clarified the stub. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to assert the notability of this "neighborhood," and Google tells me nothing, so all I can assume is that it's a collection of houses, as the term would imply. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reluctantly, as notability might far exceed implications of Google results. However, creating a new one-line article won't be difficult. ProhibitOnions 11:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Visakhapatnam, then redirect. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:25, 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 04:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deric Williams[edit]

Previously included in a separate nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artbox, there was no consensus achieved on this article, so it is being relisted separately. The original nominator (User:Fnarf999) argued that the person did not satisfy the criteria at WP:BIO. bainer (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn. Feezo (Talk) 03:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge worthwhile information into Artbox. While I'd like to see the article stay put, I can't come up with a convincing argument to do so. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BIO. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This reads as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  08:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no "worthwhile information" here. He's the nephew of someone famous; he did marketing for a not-very-famous website, making him their, what, 100th most important employee? There's nothing here. My newspaper guy is as notable. Fnarf999 01:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Artbox, all notability appears to be tied up with that band. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pivotal Software(India)[edit]

Hi - this is a promo article, related to Pivotal Corporation.

• Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 03:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as non-notable as Pivotal Corporation above. Green Giant 04:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ad and promotion. Definitely non notable. --Terence Ong 11:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Ugur Basak 01:10, 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 04:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TMMaster.com[edit]

Advertisement for a website said to offer freeware. The actual site just currently has a notice that "this website is coming soon." Delete. DMG413 03:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: non-notable and spammy. Bucketsofg 04:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't possibly be notable, because it doesn't even exist yet. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Elkman. JIP | Talk 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable crystal ball vanity spam. ProhibitOnions 11:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious vanity. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 01:11, 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 deletion, CSD A7, by DakotaKahn. — TheKMan^talk 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin sellers[edit]

Delete non-notable biography/vanity page with unverifiable content Lucian Gregory 04:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - CSD A7 - nn-bio. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as above the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:29, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Prasad[edit]

Hi - this is a non-notable subject that has remained a one-liner and unsourced for nearly 6 months. Rama's Arrow 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to Himalaya Drugs, the company he's CEO of, which might be borderline notable under WP:CORP. Sandstein 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom... redirect to non-article that may or may not meet WP:CORP doesn't seem like the right solution.--Isotope23 17:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mikka (t) 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to Himalaya Drugs, it meets the first stipulation of WP:CORP definitely. --Gurubrahma 10:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Gurubrahma. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing comment: You can't redirect to a non-existant article. If the company is in fact notable, I suggest somebody write an article about it and mention Mr. Prasad there. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:44, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eocene coal[edit]

Blatant self promotion. Advertizing by User:Eocenecoal (edits:[12]) - Vsmith 04:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - advertisement plus blatantly self-promoting edits on Coal and Eocene (sensibly reverted by Vsmith) and the related Image:Eocenecoal logo.JPG which should also be speedily deleted. Green Giant 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete for reasons given. Feezo (Talk) 05:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per everybody. --Lockley 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:30, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 06:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Eastham[edit]

Non-notable in context, Google turns up little for this individual. I admire his entreprenuership, but not encyclopedic. TKE 04:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy a7 and tagged as such. Also a blatant advertisement. --Rory096 04:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree C&P'd almost directly from http://www.zacheastham.com/ Garfield226 04:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy a7 -vanity, advertisement, non notable.--Dakota ~ ° 05:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy a7 per above --Khoikhoi 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]