< March 22 March 24 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

March 23[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep expanded article. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn bag[edit]

I Prodded; removed by author. Rationale was: "not-notable definition." If you were to make an ordered list of words or phrases that don't require an article, I think this one would place rather high--Fuhghettaboutit 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Am I supposed to take that personally? heh youngamerican (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The technology of microwave popcorn bags may be fodder for an article (though in its present incarnation I think it should be merged with popcorn). However, there is nothing notable about popcorn bags of the everyday variety. The entire focus should thus be on the history and technology involved with that topic; the article should not masquerade as a general article on popcorn bags and should be renamed "Microwave popcorn bag technology" or something similar. Think about it this way, would there be any reason to keep if the article was lolipop wrapper? Generic popcorn bags are still the analogue of lolipop wrapper. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's saying it is. Read the article. Grandmasterka 04:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious B[edit]

Delete -real, but not notable enough in own right exolon 00:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night Warrior[edit]

A webcomic, found here. The site hosting it has no Alexa rank, there doesn't seem to be any sign of notability for it. What makes this website more distinct and notable about all the others? Not much by the looks of it. - Hahnchen 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night Warrior is the U.K.'s leading independant comic book. It's a unique collaboration of over a hundered artists and writers from all over the world. That in itself makes it stand out above all the others and makes it a worthy inclusion to wikipedia.

It's had some big press attention already for example it's one of the few independant webcomics to feature on Comic-Con. At it's peak it gets over a thousand unique hits per day and later in the year it's going to print.

It would seem odd to have a list of British comics or Webcomics and not have Night Warrior on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.49.56 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2006 March 24

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of writers[edit]

PROD tag removed. Article about a website that does not seem to meet WP:WEB or be otherwise verifiable. W.marsh 00:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks very likely to be deleted simply because the forum isn't notable enough to merit an entry. With 122 members as of this writing, it looks unlikely that anyone who isn't directly involved in the forum would ever visit, or edit, the Wikipedia page. That means that the page would end up being forever POV and unencyclopedic (which, I submit, it is) and would be unlikely to ever meet Wikipedia's standards of quality. Get yourself a few thousand more users and a few mentions in major national or international publications and your forum may then become notable. Incidentally, I myself made the same mistake last year: I submitted a web forum I belong to with 298 users. The article was deleted. --Hyperbole 23:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To read up on the specifics of what Hyperbole is saying, please look at the links given above by Mr. Roy (that is; WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, WP:SPAM). Kuru talk 04:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rue Dussault[edit]

Delete - NN Road - Building mentioned doesn't have it's own article. exolon 00:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yosh![edit]

Hosted on Comic Genesis, a free webcomics host is Yosh. You can have a look at it's sub 70 member forum here too. A google search for "yosh webcomic" (without quotes) generates less than 150 hits, and from what I see, none of them are respectable webcomic review or commentary sites. Hosted on the comicgen.com domain, it manages to capture 2% of traffic to a domain ranked at roughly 20,000. This is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:42, 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 USERFY and DELETE. Harro5 03:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arwa gunja[edit]

The subject is a non-notable author who wrote for the newspaper of New York University. While the NYU paper is well-regarded and surely more prominent than most college newspapers, the subject of this article doesn't seem to warrant a page; in any case, the entry as currently is exists is unsourced and poorly formatted and contains sundry POV comments. In view of WP:BIO, delete. Joe 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DENWO[edit]

Are there any WoW guilds that could be considered notable? ~MDD4696 00:52, 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 keep. Sango123 (e) 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zor[edit]

Disambiguation page with non-notable, fan cruft entries. Gflores Talk 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 01:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies, manga, anime, and television shows that take place in Tokyo[edit]

The lists offers no value. Almost every movie, manga, anime, and television show in Japan has something that happens in Tokyo. There's no encyclopedic reason to keep this article. 日本穣 01:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film Tycoon[edit]

This is a multiple nomination, here are the other articles nominated:

I first encountered this set of articles after seeing Cosmic Universe get unprodded. Although these articles appear in Template:Tycoon Computer Games, they are not Tycoon Computer games. These are not published software titles, instead, they are role playing gaming websites. I do not think that these forum games are notable. These articles are about the many iterations of a single game, the current iteration is The Other Film Tycoon. This game has 58 members in it's forum, and 32 players on their leaderboard. These are not popular games, at very very best they should be merged together, but I feel they should be deleted. - Hahnchen 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Clans (computer gaming)[edit]

Mostly empty list of non-notable entities (only KoN make a claim to notability on their website, as far as I can tell). ~MDD4696 01:05, 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 redirect to Jed Davis - Liberatore(T) 13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Congregation Of Vapors[edit]

Article was contested as a CSD A7 candidate, but this article on a tribute band to the Ramones doesn't seem to show notability. If anything should be decided upon but deletion, I'd advocate a one-line mention on the Ramones' page listing the group as a tribute. But this doesn't meet WP:MUSIC unless there's some sources which are revealed. Harro5 01:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Bliss[edit]

Nothing on the internet, the organization he was head of doesn't even have a page, no reason given for notability. Nobunaga24 01:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phone booking[edit]

Non-notable fad, unverifiable, advertisement for its website, unencyclopedic. Looks like a sophisticated version of something made up in school one day. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cora Skinner[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was a resume. Most short articles end up being a mere list of accomplishments, however, and it isn't like this is a text dump of a c.v., so I'm listing here for a notability consideration. Some of the magazines and calendars listed are notable media or commercial products, but no evidence that she herself has been singled out for recognition from those sources. No vote. Postdlf 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Bats[edit]

Splendid. Now ho about some notable and evrifiable sources, since those do not appear to meet WP:RS in respect of touring. Just zis Guy you know? 09:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When they are on Allmusic, have topped the Indie charts or made a respectable showing in the national mainstream charts, got a gold record, released a couple of albums with a decent-sized label, been covered in the music press, toured as support for a major act - these kinds of things are the indicators that a band is on the way. I wish them luck, it's a tough game. Just zis Guy you know? 16:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have a proffessionally made 4 track-EP, 2 tracks on their label's (Distort which is the same label as Alexisonfire Summer Compilation) and a proffessionally made 7" record and the video on Muchmusic. . They have t shirts, pins and other merchandise and they play shows with International nown groups. Do you people have any idea how many 1 hit wonders are have their own pages on this site? or useless stubs relating to the useless things nobody needs to know? This isnt the local highschool band, this is real group, leave em alone, whats your problem anyways, get a life and stop trying to delete my pageAvenged Evanfold 21:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are painfully aware of how many insignificant bands have managed to weasel their way into WP, and I would personally encourage you to nominate any you find which do not meet WP:MUSIC, or at least tag them with {music-importance}. But the existence of some articles which do not meet guidelines has never been, for me, a compelling argument for including more. Just zis Guy you know? 09:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you voting delete on this one? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast for fear of choking[edit]

Great name, but doesn't meet band criteria at WP:MUSIC, 30 unique Ghits, not on allmusic.com. -- Samir (the scope) 01:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, I've changed my vote. Nrets 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moot. Article already deleted by an administrator. Ifnord 20:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese FM[edit]

Non-notable internet radio station, WP:Not a crystal ball, 354 Google results [13] --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TEAM (company)[edit]

This is the second nomination for deletion; the first, resulting in no consensus, can be found here. The second nomination was made because there is nothing about this company/organization that warrants an article separate from either Quixtar or Independent Business Owner; the copyright infringement lawsuit warrants mention, but does not make "TEAM" as a whole notable. Basically, this page as it currently stands is a hodgepodge of advertising, defense of the practices of MLM organizations, links to "TEAM" websites/blogs, and a brief discussion of the website; the latter can be incorporated into a different article, the rest ought to be deleted altogether for being unencyclopedic Paul 02:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politicking timebomb[edit]

Promoting the article creator's new (or possibly not-yet-existing) blog. Google search for "Politicking timebomb" turns up no blog by that name. (note: PROD tag removed by article creator) FreplySpang (talk) 02:08, 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 10:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VMerken[edit]

This is just some guy who's good at Resident Evil 4. There's thousands of doom speedrunners that don't have articles, just because he's made a guide or two doesn't make him notable. A Clown in the Dark 02:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portipsen[edit]

Delete. Non-notable fansite, low Alexa ranking. Crystallina 03:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing Time (author's timeline)[edit]

Not encyclopedic Tom Harrison Talk 03:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is what Wikisource includes. If it's available on line, maybe we could just link to it and provide a brief summary. Tom Harrison Talk 19:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical game theory[edit]

It's nonsense, if it were not nonsense it would be OR, but it's nonsense Pete.Hurd 03:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that the sole author of this page moves it for the time being to his onw userspace, and developes it there first. After that, he can ask for comments by other editors at the mathematics project page to avoid WP:OR before reinserting it at the main space. KimvdLinde 17:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, i added references... don't say it's OR or nonsense before it gets more complete. Dexter Inside 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding references at the end is not sufficient in this case, I would consider to add references in the text as to indicate where it has been described as such. Combining pieces can also be original research. KimvdLinde 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that there is no such thing called statistical game theory, but that this article contains nothing that pertains to how the term as it is used outside of this page. None of the references supplied pertain to the topic either. Pete.Hurd 17:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just wanted to add some material for other voters, but now I'm voting myself. The references given are general texts and so don't really support the article, which fails to discuss material aspects of statistical game theory as described elsewhere, so it should be deleted. If the true subject is something else, it can be recreated. Slowmover 18:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, where is it all about (in layman terms)? KimvdLinde 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) a more general theory that resembles the way statistics is used in physical chemistry, to be used in computer science
2) it is being developed and supported by the Polytechnic University of Bucharest, as well as some private companies interested in its applications in parallel processing and online gaming
3) here it is refered to with the term "statistical game theory" so if you are right it may be an ambiguation
4) it's supposed to treat general problems that arise from game theory and chaos theory as a cybernetic system
5) it's supposed to solve these problems using statistical methods Dexter Inside 19:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramatis[edit]

I tagged this as prod, but because it survived a vfd back in may the prod was removed. Basically the article survived the first time around because people wanted to give it a chance, but the article's still unverified, google turns up nothing, and the main article on the guy makes no mention of Ramatis. It sounds way too much like someone took something written in one of Kardec's books and created a character around him to write a bunch of books, but there no verification that the books or the character actually exists, and none's likely forthcoming. Night Gyr 21:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are your sources? There's nothing on this guy online. Night Gyr 09:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat has at least 10 books "written" by Ramatis, dictated to Brazilian spiritualists including Hercílio Maes and América Paoliello Marques in the 1970s. I can't tell you what they say because I don't have copies and even if I did I don't read portugese. While looking for info on Kardec I found a comment that Spiritism was gradually absorbed into Spiritualism in Europe but retains a separate identity in South America. The article needs an expert tag but should be kept as part of modern Spiritism. Thatcher131 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are also apparently 2 books about Spiritism that mention Ramatis including Spirits and scientists, ideology, spiritism, and Brazilian culture by David Hess published by Penn State University Press. My library has it and I may be able to review it in the next few days. Thatcher131 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 03:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Dougherty[edit]

Delete. This man has done nothing except issue a prophesy that managed to be correct (even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so making that prediction is not notable by itself). The article has no sources except the man's own homepage and near-death.com; this does not constitute widespread media coverage. In short: I can't find any evidence of notability. Powers 03:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informationship[edit]

neologism with only 143 unique Google hits. It has been suggested that this be moved to Wiktionary, I disagree. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitopia[edit]

The Wikitopia movement's entry should not be removed because it is a sincere political movement which is developing both a body of work and a following very rapidly. It can be googled. It also has a wikibook which is well underway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitopian (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkpedia[edit]

nn concept. 10 Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilac circle[edit]

Non-notable street. Delete. Fightindaman 04:03, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommandN[edit]

This article was previously deleted and protected from recreation. This new version was supported at WP:DRV and so I have moved it into place. DRV also wanted it relisted here. -Splashtalk 23:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is section on WP:NOT? Mike (T C) 06:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ive actually contacted the host amber to see if there has been any press coverage on them, she said there has been by some american news papers, i am awaiting the reply with links. If I cannot find verifiable references for this article my vote wil change to delete. Mike (T C) 21:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to allow extra time for refernces to come in. - brenneman{L} 04:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that this is important, and it is the kind of thing that will probably spin into obscurity soon. I suspect the article is a kind of advertising. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 15:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ç

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ages of characters on The Simpsons[edit]

Worthless, pointless, and shoddily written.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Welker[edit]

Author removed speedy tag and expanded the article. However, even after expansion, I don't believe the article makes any assertions that meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Vslashg (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not good at determining notability for music-related articles, but it might be worth taking a closer look at some of the other articles that User:Awelker has been creating at a rapid-fire pace. --Maxamegalon2000 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIF spam[edit]

This article is about a non-notable term that some guy "Curtis H." made up. This term is not used by people in the anti-spam field. The article has nothing useful to say which is not already said in our many other articles pertaining to email spam. It seems to exist solely to lend legitimacy to this one person's made-up word.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fubar Obfusco (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick siegel[edit]

NN creator of nn video, vanity , WP:AUTO. Only claim to notability is his video 911_Eyewitness currently up for deletion (see AfD for that to see discussion on notability of the video). 451 GhitsMmx1 04:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • User has made one 1 edit prior to this page.
  • The links here still don't show significant notability. Articles have no indication of his role in the early BBS's, only that he was interviewed for them.--Mmx1 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
zapruder[edit]

PLEASE at least I qualify for Zapruder of this century. Google will list 19000+ entries and msn 180000+ entries mostly me on a search with rick siegel in quotes. I don't need this silly site as some vanity site. I don't know who posted this page and I don't know if I want to thank them. But if it is here I will make sure it is accurate. I do not need this site to validate my accomplishments so far in this life. Ricksiegel 14:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I think all the edits from anonymous show this has a lot of interest from the world outside of Wikipedia. People do not know your system, neither do we. It looks like a lot of people know about this guy and the film, doesn't it? Someone here thought that man was worthy and created it, we found it. It seems accurate enough, although vacant of the breath of the man. I think Izwalito seems to have a reasonable solution that would allow Wiki to bubble up the content and time will determine. It is POV at this point for any of you to continue claims of "insufficient proof of notability." 911 Eyewitness 20:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a) burden of proof is on those that feel the article should be kept to submit proof of notability. none has thus far been produced
b) the flood of anonymous is a result of you putting a link to us on your site and asking people to chime in. --Mmx1 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
about a) I'm trying to contribute in that way but as I said earlier I know nothing about the guy, and am certainly not the most qualified for this job
about b) actually that's how I ended up here. While doing research for working on 9/11 conspiracy theories I found an article signed by rick siegel about agents efforting on wikipedia to silence the most provocative and authoritative documentary yet released. ::: Obviously the guy has no clue about what is wikipedia and how wikipedia works, but IMHO that doesn't make him a phony guy or a bad fellow, and I know very well how wikipedian can react in a stubborn closed-minded way, especially in case like this when one unhappy individual makes bad publicity to wikipedia and use wrong means to try to get what he wants. My guess is this is a typical case of newcomers being bitten, it is difficult to cope with a whole community when you are a single individual or a bunch of individuals. Now I would like to see people **hint**apologize**hint** for their wrongdoing and start working together, not against each other.
please 911eyewitness, don't brandish my name for I am a one man army here. Have a look at the directions I pointed you on Talk:Rick Siegel.
Izwalito


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caddington F.C.[edit]

Delete -no notability has been established. if you allow for this article, all clubs would get its own article Kiwidude 04:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Random Chess[edit]

Hoax. I would Prod this but I expect it'd be pulled. From the article Chessmaster: Chessmaster 9000 comes with over 150 different personalities ranging from International Grandmaster strength down to Stanley, who is described as a monkey and plays what are essentially random moves. This simian personality has inspired a fictitious chess variant called Stanley Random Chess. See also this. Stand by for possible influx of chain-yanking. (N.B.: Please be careful how you vote - any vote, including BJAODN, may be taken by some admins as (effectively) a keep vote. If you think the article deserves a place in BJAODN (I don't), consider voting "Delete and BJAODN".) Herostratus 05:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chessmaster page was actually incorrect in describing SR Chess as "fictitious". While much of the commentary and purported history of SR Chess is clearly exaggerated and fictitious, and functions as a spoof and parody of serious chess commentary, the game itself is real, as can be verified from the website where it is actively played. Another user has since (correctly) emended the Chessmaster reference from "fictitious" to "humorous". Gregorytopov 20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First off, AfD is no longer VfD and therefore we are not voting to delete or keep this article. Second, I'm really not sure what to make of this. References to this "game" have already been inserted into the articles of Mornington Crescent (game) and elsewhere, yet I am very hard pressed to find anything on the internet about this game that has not been written by Mr. Topov. The author references a fan base that seems to include solely himself. I am going to hold off on a keep/delete decision for now, pending more information.
Right, about AfD, but rather than "vote" perhaps I should say "traditional bolded one-word summary prepended to your argument (TBOWSPTYA)". I'm just pointing out that a TBOWSPTYA of (say) 5 Delete and 5 BJAODN can result in a closing of "No consensus, keep". Herostratus

Isopropyl 05:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if the fan base only included myself, it would be nonsense, but that is not the case. Two supporting references from external web-sites, to verify the above information:
* 1. http://www.chessvariants.org/link2.dir/srchess.html This chessvariants.org site only lists bona fide playable chess variants, and does not publish hoaxes. The historical claims of SR Chess are disputable and much of the commentary is cloaked in humor, but its playability and authenticity as a real chess variant is genuine.
* 2. http://www.schemingmind.com/games.aspx?variant_id=15 This list gives the current games of Stanley Random Chess in progress at this correspondence chess server. Over 100 games of Stanley Random Chess have been played in the last ten days alone. In fact, an international tournament is currently in progress between ten players, as is evident here: http://www.schemingmind.com/minitournament.aspx?tournament_id=520 This information can be verified with the webmaster of the schemingmind.com website, Austin Lockwood.
Two external contacts I can give: Tony Quintanilla, registered editor of chessvariants.org; and Austin Lockwood, webmaster of schemingmind.com. And dozens of schemingmind.com members who are actively playing the game.
I can appreciate the scepticism, but in view of the above, the Chessmaster page is incorrect in calling Stanley Random Chess "fictitious." This is not the case, because SR Chess is in fact a real chess variant, admittedly inspired somewhat by the Stanley Random Chess personality from the Chessmaster software. By way of explanation, the game is a parody of chess in some respects, by featuring humorous commentary and analysis. But it is a real and serious chess variant, that is played actively online between human players, especially at schemingmind.com.
The game plays exactly like regular chess, but with some additional rules, as described in the wikipedia entry. The two main differences from regular chess are correctly described under the "Rules" section, i.e. approximately 50% of moves are randomly selected by a computer; and if the game goes beyond 30 moves, the game can apparently randomly end at any moment, the winner being the player with most material. If you try playing online at schemingmind.com, you will find these facts to be true, and that the game plays exactly in this way.
In short, although some of the historical claims and some aspects of the game are subject to exaggeration and humor (as referenced in the link posted by Herostratus), the game itself is not a hoax, because there are players actively playing Stanley Random Chess at a real correspondence chess server. If deemed necessary, the content on the wikipedia page can be modified to clarify this. If items like Mornington Crescent (game) and Mao (game) can have Wikipedia entries, the same applies to Stanley Random Chess. The game has aspects of humor and secrecy, but it is a real and playable game, as any active member of the above-mentioned correspondence chess server can verify. I am quite willing to have the content modified or clarified to meet Wikipedia standards and satisfy those with concerns, but a valid entry for Stanley Random Chess is justifiable, especially since it is referenced by the Chessmaster article (albeit incorrectly as "fictional"). Feel free to direct me with specific suggestions about how I should modify the content to make it satisfactory.Gregorytopov 05:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Good point. Even though the game is real (verifiable by the links above showing current games and a current tournament between multiple players), a Wikipedia article on the game should clear state that any claims about historical origins are exaggerated and intended to reflect humor rather than reality, even though the game itself is real. The same can be said about most commentary and analysis of the game, as described well below by another player of the game, surfnsuds. The paragraph on historical claims has currently been deleted by another editor - it probably should be reworked so that readers are informed about the wild claims, but made aware that while they are false the game itself is real, and that Monty Python style commentary is typically employed to accompany a real game, and is part of the attraction of the game. Gregorytopov 14:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Gregorytopov[reply]

Update It's real, and it's fun to play! I have played many games of Stanley Random Chess on Schemingmind.com over the last year or so. I enjoy it very much. It is worthwhile on a number of levels.

The game itself can be played to win, in spite of (and even taking advantage of) the random aspects (which are accurately described above, though I think the percentage of random moves are less than 50% as stated above - more like 30% is my guess). This aspect involves an exercise of basic statistics. The game also is unique in that one may make moves which in regular chess would appear to be blunders. However, again by playing the odds, you can frequently obtain advantage by making intentional "blunders". With study, you can determine which "blunders" can reault in advantage and which are not likely to. This aspect of the game to mind resembles bluffing in poker and is unique among the many chess variants I have played.

However, the most unusual and to my mind, the most fun aspect of the game is the tradition of creative, humorous commentary surrounding the game. The process is as mentioned above, similar to "Mornington Crescent" and the result reads more like Monty Python.

These points are intended to show that the game is viable and enjoyable for folks who tend to enjoy creative gaming. But they are my conclusions and opinions. Surely, however, the hundreds of games played to date at SchemingMind.com by dozens of players over the last year are a verifiable fact that proves the game is as real as tic-tac-toe.

I am brand-new to Wiki and have not figured things out yet. Bear with me. I am NOT GregTopov, but I admire his creation.

--Surfnsuds 20:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Please note where those references point. A single geocities account with utter BS about the game, a copy of the BS, and a game server. This is something made up in school one day and then written up on a couple of web sites. Also compare the purpoted history of "Common Chess" and, well, reality. Weregerbil 10:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like Mornington Crescent (game), Stanley Random Chess involves much parody and fiction, but like Mao (game) it is a real game with real rules and is actively played by enthusiasts. Visit these links[20][21] to verify this, and you'll see for yourself that I'm not dreaming this up or perpetuating a hoax about a non-existent game played only by myself. Gregorytopov 16:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I'm a little perplexed by the assertion that "the references for this article are all 1. by the same person", particularly when the article cites at least three other sources outside the geocities site:
Comment, for those who don't read Dutch: this Krabbé article is very obviously not intended to be taken seriously. David Sneek 20:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refutation, the Krabbe article correctly portrays typical SR Chess commentary, which as already noted is highly exaggerated and humorous in keeping with the spirit of the game. But this doesn't detract from the fact that the variant itself is real and playable. Conversely, it is an argument in favor of its notability, since it has received attention from independent chess analysts like Tim Krabbe. Gregorytopov 20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To say that his article, which consists entirely of claims no reader will believe, "doesn't detract from the fact that the variant itself is real", is hardly the same as suggesting that it can serve as a reference for an encyclopedia article. David Sneek 21:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All three can be contacted for the purposes of external verification. Isn't this inconsistent with the suggestion that there is a single source, and that the article is "unverifiable"? Respectfully submitted, Gregorytopov 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)GregoryTopov[reply]
Excuse me, one of the sources is written by another person, possibly as a translation of the others. Unverifiability claim stands. Ziggurat 19:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refutation. 1. Since this is a serious discussion about the inclusion of SR Chess, the record should state that I have never played Mr. Sneek. 2. Many chess variants with articles on Wikipedia are played by far less people than Stanley Random Chess, which has around 100 active games in progress on one chess server alone at present. Gregorytopov 20:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten people playing each other on one server. Any evidence that it is played somewhere else? David Sneek 22:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then the discussion turned to questions of notableness. It was compared(?) to a water gun fight in someone's backyard. I think the rhetorical comparison actually illustrates that the game is notable. Please follow my logic.

It's not exactly a water gun fight; but, could a tug-of-war contest ever make the Wikipedia? There is a famous tug-of war contest between two cities on the Mississippi River. While only the Iowa and Illinois city have direct interest in the contest, surely its relationship to the Mighty Mississip, to commercial river navigation (which is halted during the contest), and its uniqueness would give sufficient notoriety to the contest to justify a Wikipedia entry, n'est ce pas?

So, how do I justify that SR Chess is notable? SR Chess is discussed in at least two languages and on at least three referrenced independent websites (four with Wikipedia). Hundreds of games have been played -- by players around the world. This real and notable game has legitimate strategical value (for instance, the random elements are no obstacle to the good SRC player winning the majority of his or her games).

The problem is perhaps not irrelevance, but irritation. While the psuedo-serious approach to the game by its adherents (of which I am one) seems to bother some persons, their distress over behaviour is clearly no reason to eliminate the article itself. I do not know in what form the article first appeared; but, it looks objective and unoffensive at this point.

Stanley Random Chess is a legitimate part of the growing realm of chess variants. Please allow the article to remain in Wikipedia.

Archr Archr 17:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refutation. A patently false assertion that cannot be substantiated, and an unfair contribution to this discussion. Unlike Stanley Random Chess, this backyard water pistol competition is not verifiable to have over 100 active games in progress, a current tournament, several external sources on multiple web-sites [24] [25], including one in another language[26], multiple participants who have testified here in support of its inclusion, and arguably less notable sister chess variants which have yet rightfully been gained existing entrance into Wikipedia. Gregorytopov 20:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refutation of Refutation. I've just taken the time to actually sign up to your site and take a look at these statistics you've mentioned - the "100 active games" you keep citing appear to be from a tournament of just ten people playing against each other in a round-robin fashion, which makes it quite a disingenuous statistic. I've had bigger water pistol fights than that. --McGeddon 20:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refutation. The article is intended to be straight-forward and factual, and not the perpetration of a hoax, and I welcome any suggestions for improving it to make it more encyclopaedic. It is as well-sourced and at least as notable as chess variants already on Wikipedia like Penultima, Multiple move chess, Monster chess, Madrasi chess, and Colour chess. I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia, so please bear with me as I try to conform to the excellent standards of material here. Please feel free to give me guidance in making the article more encyclopaedic, and I will gladly revise it accordingly, since admitted weaknesses in presentation and style warrant revision and editing, not deletion. Gregorytopov 19:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right that there are some bad chess-variant pages around (Colour chess is insanely incoherent), and I'd support a delete on those as much as this. For your article to be cleaned up, the "Rules" section should either be clarified to "you toss a coin before each move to see whether to move randomly, and make stuff up to sound funny, and that's it" or at least explain that the software it runs on has hidden algorithms, if that's what this is about. It's very tough reading at the moment for anyone who's wondering what the game actually is, and "too complex to summarize" sets off all the usual hoax alarms. But eh, whatever you reword it to, I'm still not convinced that it's a sufficiently notable game. --McGeddon 20:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game is notable because of the way it deals with the rules of chess. I agree that the current article needs heavy revision to fit Wikipedia standards, but as a chess variant the game is innovative. It's unfortunate that the game is linked so heavily to Mornington Crescent like history, but the gameplay is unique and deserving of a proper write up... with the fictional history left as a subsection rather than the focus. neoliminal 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exceeds? Fizzbin is a Star Trek thing, so has a considerable audience and presumably gets played by Trek fans occasionally. Mornington Crescent has been part of a popular UK radio show for 34 years and is played constantly on a number of dedicated web sites. I haven't yet seen any evidence that Stanley Random Chess beats either of these, that it's anything more than a jokey game played by ten friends on one web server. --McGeddon 21:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that you like Nomic. While played by very few people, this game is notable for it's rules!!! This is exactly why this entry needs to exist. The rules are what make SRC notable... which are unfortunately hidden in a Mao-esc secrecy.neoliminal 04:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus 23:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response. While it's true that only one internet chess server currently can support online play of SR Chess (and for the record, it should be noted that schemingmind.com is in no way whatsoever my web-site, I am merely a registered member there along with many others), it should be mentioned that:
1. On more than one occasion Stanley Random Chess has been the subject of discussion in chess newsgroups and other websites (I even came across one instance where a user observed that he had checked Wikipedia trying to find accurate information about it); SR Chess was even referenced here in Wikipedia on the Chessmaster page prior to the creation of this article.
2. The number of people who play it is certainly not limited to 10 (although the question could be asked whether this would be true of some other chess variants with Wikipedia articles), in fact I'm not even participating in the present tournament involving 10 players. The game has enjoyed an active and growing player base ever since its creation, which suggests it is not a mere novelty destined to enjoy only 15 minutes of fame.
  • General comment. As an aside, and as a newcomer to Wikipedia, I'd like to express appreciation for the patience shown me in learning how Wikipedia works, and for Wikipedia itself. I'm very impressed with and appreciative of the rigorous process required for publication here. In my ignorance, I was mistakenly of the impression that any Tom Dick or Harry could post their wild theories here (not that I counted myself among them). I'm finding that the method of peer consensus to approve and moderate content is very effective - I know that my article has already benefited from that, and rightly forced me to reshape its original form. I have learned from my experience with this that I can trust Wikipedia content to be quite reliable! Although I recognize that the article on Stanley Random Chess probably needs some further work, I have already made significant changes to the way it was originally submitted, and I now realize that in its original form, it was quite unacceptable and would (correctly) have raised many flags of alert. It should be noted that several of those who expressed themselves in favor of its deletion, did so in response to the article in its original form, not its present revised state. I hope that in its present revised form, with some further improvement and editing, can eventually be regarded as appropriate, honest, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Gregorytopov 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm new to the AfD process, so forgive me if this is explained somewhere obvious, but - is this how the process actually works? The AfD page just says that "Articles for Deletion (AfD) (formerly Votes for deletion) is where Wikipedians discuss whether articles should be deleted.", and I don't see how this rules out a discussion that moves away from the initial point. It looks like the system has been changed from "Votes for Deletion", so it's not about vote counting any more, it's about debate. So long as we don't delete this article purely for being a hoax, I don't see a problem. --McGeddon 02:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's acceptable to delete an article for reasons other than the nominator's. It is desirable for people to reassess their opinion if new information develops, but we cannot assume that someone has simply not returned to view further comments (I, for example, have kept an eye on the page and am still not convinced, so my opinion stands). Ziggurat 02:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Ziggurat and McGeddon. The AfD and the votes still stand. As with Ziggurat I have also kept an eye on the debate after my initial vote. And I still say delete because even if not patent nonsense; I have yet to see any evidence of the encyclopedic nature of SRC as compared to the aforementioned backyard water pistol competition. Just being a chess variant is not sufficient. If it is being played by 10 people (or even 100 people) that too is not notable. The question is, is it a well-known and significant chess variant or not? IMO neither the above argument nor the sources demonstrate that it is. Marcus22 16:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too am still following this discussion and I still see this as a non-notable chess variant. No Guru 18:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite it being an article I submitted that's up for debate, it seems to me entirely reasonable that even if the original ground for proposed deletion turns out to be spurious (as in this case, since SR Chess is not a hoax), if other grounds are raised that potentially warrant deletion, a discussion and debate on these new grounds is entirely legitimate. Even though I don't find these new grounds convincing yet, a debate about them is quite fair. Gregorytopov 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As an aside, why does the article refer to normal chess as "Simplified SR Chess"? Isopropyl 18:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the paragraph "Parody and Humor", under "Historical Origin", where it states: "Players contribute to a growing tradition of humorous fiction about the game's origins, making exaggerated claims that modern chess (which SR Chess enthusiasts contemptuously refer to as "Common Chess" or "Simplified SR Chess") is merely a simplified form and development from SR Chess." Gregorytopov 19:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure (club night)[edit]

Delete I don't think club nights deserve encyclopedia entries. This is spam.--Yannick 05:01, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slam (band)[edit]

Unfortunately, of the two main dance music magazines in the UK Muzik magazine has now closed down and Mixmag don't publish their articles on the web. Believe it or not, but there is a world outside www! AMG has them, which is usually considered a pretty indicator. I will however have a search for a few more entries. --kingboyk 13:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC) OK, Soma. The article isn't about them, and Slam are probably their most famous act, although they have other artistes such as Desert Storm and Ege Bam Yasi who are well known to dance music afficionados but probably won't get articles here. BBC article on Slam, "Glasgow's premiere techno twosome". Plenty of Google hits, see [29]. --kingboyk 13:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re. the BBC review - I don't think that a short review counts as being "featured". We are all open to the possibility that this is an underground wonder well reported outside the internet, but please cite specific articles. But whatever happens, please understand I will hold no grudge if I am outvoted or proven wrong on this AfD.--Yannick 15:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue N Purple Marketing[edit]

Non-notable marketing company / advertising. Prod tag was removed by User:202.182.168.190. -- Cnwb 05:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TimberWolf Content Management[edit]

Appears non-notable per the proposed standard WP:SOFTWARE. Its forum has received less than 100 posts in total. The "official website" is presently non-accessible. Wikipedia is not a software directory. The article's author has failed to provide sources for the notability of what appars to be his own CMS ten days after being asked to. Contested PROD. Sandstein 05:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypernetworking[edit]

Comment 884 hits for "Killer Chihuahua"--Yannick 00:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted article and short article lacking context. Capitalistroadster 08:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teh sex[edit]

completely useless M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:29, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. jude academy[edit]

has no content M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotherapy[edit]

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

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

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie schurr[edit]

Prod by Kinu contested. With apologies to Kinu, and because I think he well stated the reasons for which deletion is appropriate, I'm stealing his justification from prod: "Non-notable author: three low-ranked books listed on Amazon, all published by Lulu Press (self-publishing house) or Lotus Books (subject's own press). Few relevant search results for "melanie schurr"+author. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Also suspected that article is created by subject." Userfy (if user so desires) and delete. Joe 06:39, 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 Keep; article stubbed, nom withdrawn. I'd like to point out that far from being an incorrectly brought AFD, the article as it stood when nominated was actually speedy deleteable under CSD G1. kingboyk 13:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. M. Reynolds[edit]

Empty article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroadster 08:54, 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 deleted as test page. Capitalistroadster 09:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Volkman[edit]

non-notable M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:47, 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 keep. W.marsh 02:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cdigix[edit]

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

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The falwell game[edit]

non-notable: only 114 hits in google M1ss1ontomars2k4 07:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Other Gods[edit]

While a funny article, this is clearly about an unknown college band, probably started by the author of the article. Found no other information about this group anywhere else. ShunnedOne 07:03, 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 keep. Sango123 (e) 00:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castel School Guernsey[edit]

non-notable; no real content M1ss1ontomars2k4 07:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's not, but the article as it stood wasn't even a stub. Deletion would have been the right result, and wouldn't have precluded recreation of a more substantial article. Furthermore, as often happens, it looks like AFD listing has stimulated some improvements, which is all well and good. --kingboyk 18:36, 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 most likely delete. This article was speedy deleted as offensive, trollish nonsense. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun-Nazi[edit]

Delete. per WP:WINAD, as a slang term with growing use it may belong in a dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. Beyond definition, content is speculative and frivilous. Rockpocket 07:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete If you delete it, doesnt that make you a Fun-Nazi? Bill the Bear 07:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Belongs in Urban Dictionary. Ramanpotential 07:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is frivilous. If it belongs in a dictionary, then with this amount of information, it belongs in an encyclopaedia too.

Delete. Beyond the definition, content is highly speculative at best. --Chris 07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (Please don't edit my signature, thanks.)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. You all must realize that by deleting this article you have simply provided reference for it. By deleting it you are all Fun-Nazis. If you delete it you will only enhance its credibility. Please rethink your decisions. --Rakamamakmak 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, by keeping the article, fun-nazism will become even less notable. We wouldn't want that to happen, would we? Delete. David Sneek 08:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it, it seems like a good article to me. It is a slang term, but i think it requires a bit more information that urbandictionary 24.16.148.14 07:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Editors 24.16.148.14, Rakamamakmak and Bill the Bear all appear to have limited and highly overlapping contribution profiles. Rockpocket 07:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont DeleteI dont know about you, but the word "Fun Nazi" is taking on a life of its own in my area. Everyone on campus is saying it! I think as the stories come in, this will be a good article. I say give it a chance. The madscientist 07:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO delete I agree with keeping it, most urban dictionaries don't provide nearly the amount of reference that this article does.

Dont delete This is a good, informitive article about the meaning behind the word that many of us hear but dont know what to think of it. --Compman11 07:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete I saw this come up and I really like it. I think it fits the criteria very well for an encyclopedia article. its more than speculative --Crazycrazycrazy 07:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compman11 and Crazycrazycrazy seem to be sock puppets -- check their contributions. —This unsigned comment was added by Crazycomputers (talk • contribs) ..

(WP:SOCK)--Jimbo Wales has said, "It's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason."-I consider the spread on info on Fun-Nazism a very very good reason —This unsigned comment was added by 71.112.39.164 (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of signatories of the Declaration of Sentiments[edit]

Listcruft. Move to wikisource and delete. Ezeu 07:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moatsad[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sequart.com[edit]

See also a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Darius. The site doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:WEB and the article cites no references. The lead claims the site to be one that publishes news, editorial columns, interviews, annotations, critical essays about the medium of comics, and the Continuity Pages, a hyperlinked study of families of characters by continuity rather than by title and date. The critical essays aren't peer reviewed and the whole site can be regarded as Julian Darius' personal website, per [32], "Sequart.com began in 1996 in the form of various writings on comics by Julian Darius on his personal website". Neither the site nor Darius have, as of yet, established notability within the comics scholarship field. Contributors to the site mentioned in the article are not notable within the field. The controversies described in the article reads to me as no different to any other internet message board spat. The books the site publishes are published through CafePress.com. At this present time, I don't think the site has established enough notability within its field to warrant an article, since wikipedia is not a web directory. Considering all of the above, I'm proposing deletion with no prejudice against a new article when notability has been established. Hiding talk 08:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please explain how the site mets WP:WEB, as this would influence the discussion. I also apologise, the site's only book is published through Lulu.com. I'm not convinced one book constitutes a book line. Deteails of the press coverage would be a help. Hiding talk 12:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stelzner[edit]

Looks like a vanity page -- and seems to be one, judging from its history page -- Mareklug talk 08:29, 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 transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underserved[edit]

Dicdef, seemingly without the possibility of being expanded to a wikipedia-worthy article Kcordina Talk 09:41, 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 no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBuzz[edit]

There is insufficient knowledge -- hmmm, maybe that's the wrong word -- that this device is iNotable. iDelete. --Nlu (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uber street[edit]

advertising for something without google hits Stone 10:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project NetBoard[edit]

Not notable - about 300 google results. Does not meet requirements of WP:Software Sleepyhead 10:53, 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supremo Gophero[edit]

Delete nn band per Wikipedia:Notability (music) Gimboid13 11:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memorable ODI batting performance[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Salvation Army halls in Lincolnshire[edit]

This gallery is not really needed. There is one image in the gallery, and this image has been listed as a possible copyright violation Rhyddfrydol 11:29, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Vicario[edit]

Delete Almost none of the information contained in this article is creditable or true. In fact it attempts to humorously degrade Frank Vicario's character.


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Acolytes (comics). Sango123 (e) 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nance Winters[edit]

Nonsense. Prod was objected. Ezeu 12:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth and Magic[edit]

Delete - Appears to be nothing but nonsense. Stefanf 12:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pethuel[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete; merging and deleting is a pain in the ass (at best), since the GFDL requires the preservation of the content's history. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaba's ancestors[edit]

Sahaba article would be dominated by this list. --Striver 16:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, their ancestry is also notable, you can often find the patronymics for up to 5-6 generations going back. --Striver 19:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis day[edit]

Apparent hoax. "An Internet-based phenomenon" that produces zero hits during a Google search.[36] Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 talk 12:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whitecolours (talk · contribs) has a total of three edits --Allen3 talk 12:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When we two parted[edit]

Delete. Page contains nothing but text of a poem that's already at Wikisource.[37] --Calair 13:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Oosterman[edit]

Vanity page Andyru 13:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I (William Oosterman)am no longer at Citywide both they and I would prefer that the bio is listed as seperate. It fits very well into the Canadian Clergy seciton. Andyru is a former Elder who resigned while at Westboro Baptist. If you check all his contributions he is on a campagin to discredit me and support Roy Lawrence the pedophile who snuck into our church under false pretenses and became Associate pastor, causing an incredible amount of damage. First Andyru posted a number of blatant lies about me on my page, now he is trying to have it removed. Take that into consideration during this "hearing". —This unsigned comment was added by Williamo1 (talk • contribs) .

If you are indeed Rev. Oosterman (and I have no reason to doubt that), your own edit history on this and related articles doesn't help your case, unfortunately. Be sure to read WP:VANITY, and you may want to reconsider contributing to articles about yourself and closely related organizations. Powers 15:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Williamo1, I think a basic problem you have to realize, is that when people who are not famous, make articles about themselves, the only people interested in those article are people who either personally love the person, or personally dislike the person (with exceptions of course). This is one reason why we strongly discourage people from writing bios of themselves, and generally discourage articles on most regular people (or "non-notable" to use our lingo). I'm sure you don't like some of the stuff written about you. But, you can't, and won't be able to control it. Unsourced negative statements about you can be removed, but if somebody puts relevant sourced verifiable facts (or notable opinions), which aren't favorable to you, then you might have to live with that. You should seriously consider supporting deletion, and remove the problem. This is not your personal page, and it can never be what you wanted it to be. A better option would be to go make your own personal web page, at one of many web hosts (free or non-free). Then you can say anything you want, talk openly about your beleifs, and not have critics edit the page. Surely, that's what you truly want. --Rob 16:25, 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 Speedily deleted as per author's request.  (aeropagitica)  16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Connection (Sydney)[edit]

Delete. I wrote this article then immediately wrote a much better version of it under the title 'Russian Connections in Australia'. This new article renders Russian connection (sydney) obsolete Nick mallory 14:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Just so you know, Nick, if you are the creator and sole editor of an article, you can request it be Speedily Deleted, instead of having to go through the AfD process. Welcome to Wikipedia! =) Powers 14:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Abdullah ibn Abbas[edit]

Bro, its not like i created this yesterday. And i did creat a family tree for them:

And by the way, Ibn Abbas is no way a random single individual. --Striver 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wasn't accusing you of creating them yesterday, but maybe you misunderstood my suggestion. What I mean't was a single family tree which highlights the Prophet and the Caliphs in bold, and around them as many of their relations as you want but keep it in line with Family tree of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt or any of the other Family trees of Egyptian dynasties. That way a reader can look at the tree and see the way that any two particular individuals are related. Ibn Abbas did not exist in a vacuum did he? He was related to several significant leaders of the Muslims, so he should be part of a larger family tree to illustrate this. Does that make any sense? Green Giant


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plan 9 (surf band)[edit]

Allmusic has no fewer than four bands called Plan 9 - and this is not one of them. Search on band album name gets <900 ghits. No chart position stated, no evidence of notability (German surf bands are not, I guess, top of the Billboard chart most weeks). Just zis Guy you know? 14:43, 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 Deleted by Syrthiss.  (aeropagitica)  23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kobus van Rensburg[edit]

Person is promoting himself and his incoherent ideas JMK 16:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oslo Pilates Center[edit]

The "first Pilates studio in Oslo", but that doesn't make it notable. 4 Google hits. Punkmorten 16:46, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public cardroom etiquette (poker)[edit]

Nominated for deletion by anonymous user, but AFD process not completed. Completing now. Essexmutant 17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus as Mythical Creation[edit]

This article replicates Jesus-Myth and functions as a POV fork Paul B 17:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious objections[edit]

This page was created in response to the extended discussion on the old Jesus-Myth page. "Jesus-Myth" is a term commonly used by Christian apologists to refer to the concept that Jesus is a purely mythical creation. Aside from the title of a book, the term is not used by people who reject Jesus's historicity; about the only time one hears it is in a sneering manner from Christians. Discussion on the Talk page indicated general dissatisfaction with the title.

The Jesus-Myth page to a large extent reflected the Christian view of the idea and was mostly a jumbled, unorganized conglomeration of straw-man arguments until last week. After a great deal of often-heated debate, I re-wrote the page and offered it up for comment under my own personal page. A day passed with only a single minor comment, so I took the initiative to create the page.

It's my personal opinion that the RfD was made by a Christian who objects to the coherent presentation of an argument he passionately believes is profoundly heretical. As such, I believe that deleting this page would be a great disservice to Wikipedia.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote and Comment[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lior Haramaty[edit]

vanity page of user Liorhar. Some 70 Ghits for the name. Also bundling the walled garden articles of VocalTec and Designfenzider, (note the trailing comma) in this AfD.

Followed almost the exact format of article Alon Cohen who shared the founding of VocalTec and the mentioned patent. Reference to the facts can be foud [41] and many other references you can easily find on the net.

I would agree if not for the simple fact that this was copied from an existing article which shared both the founding of the company and the writing of the patent, and set the facts right. Should one hide behind a false name to do something like that to make it right? (as unfortunately probably is commonly done). This was just setting the facts right, which is what wikipedia is all about.

Regardless of the above - Vocaltec's articles are here because it totally changed the telecommunication scene and the economy behind it - you can expend on that forever, and the effect continues and will continue to shape it for the foreseen future. You're welcome to re-write these articles and actually expending them will probably serve them right.


Thanks, I appreciate that. As for Designfenzider, - didn't have time to write much about it, and maybe I shouldn't because of conflict of interest (although I sometimes think I’m “too objective” when it comes to where conflict of interest is involved…), but the company, and its main designer (Ron Gilad, another article-that-should-be-written), deserve its own article(s) as it has and is influencing the design industry (you can find a lot of reference by googelign and see pages and articles in many publications including a recent one in New York Times’ business section).

Anyway, I believe I made my point(s) and appreciate your sincerity and common sense (always good to chat with someone who keeps an open mind and looks at for solutions that make sense), so at this point I’ll pull out of this issues, and let you take it from here.

Thanks.


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy of a helicopter[edit]

Per talk page, everything relevant has been merged into Helicopter. This now seems like a random bunch of lists. vortex talk 17:57, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So where the bloody hell are you?[edit]

Delete because it is too short, uses profanity, and is not important enough to warrant any article. Alethiophile 18:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAlethiophile has suggested on my talk page that this was a personal attack. I thought that I properly critcized (albeit stridently) the rationale underlying the nomination but did not write pejoratively vis-à-vis the nominator; to have written that perhaps he/she did not fully appreciate WP:NOT, I thought, was not to criticize the nominator but, instead, to suggest that he/she familiarize herself with policies reflecting a general consensus. Do others believe that I (and other editors on this page who voted "keep" in view of WP:NOT) wrote untowardly? Joe 19:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, I would agree that Alethiophile has shown a lack of understanding of WP:NOT, and I do not consider that to be a personal attack. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least; he actually left the same message on my talk page as well. If I was interested in personal attacks, I probably would not have cited WP:AGF. --Kinu t/c 20:13, 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 Keep. Rob 04:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter North (porn star)[edit]

Delete because it is offensive, pornographic, and can serve no possible purpose. Alethiophile 18:10, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cutmore[edit]

hoax — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhiJ (talk • contribs)

First, apologies for not signing above. I heard that he was added to the IMDB, as you can add to it in a simmilar way to the way you can add to wikipedia (so I heard). The wikipedia article for IMDB seems to imply this as well. This archive also makes me suspicious [42] "Simon as the face of KFC in Bulgaria"!?, but maybe I'm just being very naive and gullible--PhiJ 19:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong on this, but my understanding is that you can get a person added to IMDB, but the credits come from the actual movies. You can find listings for people with no credits, and those are suspect. Fan1967 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB has been wrong before but I'm going to need more to go on than "my mates said it was a hoax". kotepho 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed (I think strong) evidence that it is a fake on the relevent talk page --PhiJ 12:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should_Black_Art_Still_Be_Beautiful?[edit]

It is an advert Peter 18:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is an advert for an upcoming event. Peter 18:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazee lamont[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BIO — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I fell off the fence, this person is not even close to Air Force Amy. Non-notable per nom. Ifnord 01:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backslash Podcasting Group[edit]

Non-notable group. 93 Google hits, six of them unique. Was PROD'ed but tag removed by author. Ifnord 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popko Peter van der Molen[edit]

No apparent notability to this academic (WP:PROFTEST). (User:Stefan.wolfrum understandably has used this to gauge Wikipedia's notability standards; see Wolfrum, Stefan M. (AfD discussion)) —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-23 19:14Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glassesdirect[edit]

Delete as advertisement. Author has made several good-faith attempts to rewrite the article (see discussion here), but still appears to be promoting the site rather than providing encyclopedic information. No apparent assertion notability other than the belief of the owner that "his company has revolutionised the way Britons buy their glasses".

crystal ball aspects) Dlyons493 Talk 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Jiff78, Littlewoods has several assumptions of notability, such as the fact that they have been in business since 1923, and that they have a collection in the National Football Museum, among others. Glassesdirect does not seem to have any assertion of notability. I would agree that the quote you use above could be rewritten so as not to sound promotional, but beyond that, the Littlewoods article is pretty much indisputable. Would it be safe to assume that you have a vested interest in Glassesdirect? --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Littlewoods was a bad example, take SysWear or Dorothy_Perkins, both these articles (there are many others) seem self promoting to me with little other content. I tried to add notability to my aritcle by giving examples of where Glassesdirect had been in the press (now removed), not just because they have been in the press but because of the reason. My main concern is that my article now, is not that different to the others in the above category, but has been singled out for deletion. I have bought many pairs of glasses from this company and have recently found Wikipedia as a very good resource of information, I wanted to share my cost savings with other people. I am also trying to understand Wikipedia's policies for article writing which currently seem a bit hit & miss.Jiff78

  • Comment - Thank you Sliggy, I have a lot to learn when writing articles for Wikipedia, but this experience has given me a good understanding on how not to do it :) Thanks for you time, it is exactly what I wanted to get across Jiff78
  • My pleasure, I enjoyed the challenge. Sliggy 00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Connell[edit]

Notable why? The article says a lot about him but not what he's done that merits an article. CEO of MediaWeb but what's that? Google doesn't say much about him ([43] & [44]). Spondoolicks 19:52, 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 as nn-bio. Fetofs Hello! 22:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alecia Johnson[edit]

Apparently the founder of a "notorious" street gang called Duece Duece N*. "Alecia Johnson" only returns 285 google hits, none of which mention a gang, while "Duece Duece N*" only returns 16 hits. Also, the person is only 14 years old. I suspect that this page is a hoax. Schzmo 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software for children: Issues concerned[edit]

Textbook original research, with footnotes and everything. Wikipedia is not a manual on software design, so I can't see how this could be encyclopedic if it were not original research. Sandstein 20:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Dillon[edit]

Success first, then an article in Wikipedia... Userfy? Google seems pretty uncertain about this guy as well. Rklawton 20:33, 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.

===Craig Dillon===

Craig Dillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP Article. Supposed media personality, but can't see how he is notable. Looked at it several times. Reads like a puff piece. Meida personality on youtube but few followers. Fails {[WP:BIO]] and WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Garden Walk Buffalo"[edit]

Advertisement. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is my first time posting on Wikipedia, and I apologize for my faux pas. I'm sure that a lot of the content can be changed to make this less "public relations" (it is not advertising), and more "encyclopedia". Please advise as to how this article can be transformed into something acceptable. It's not clear, based upon seeing a lot of the content out on the website, what make this qualify for rejection while others do not.

The purpose of the post was to communicate a significant non-profit cultural event to the Western New York region, and growing outside of this region as well. Tens of thousands of people flock to this area each year, many coming from out of state as well. Its popularity is growing exponentially.

What makes this event unique is that hundreds of Buffalonians formally organize and volunteer every year to put on an event whose sole purpose is to beautify the city, improve its public image, and create a better type of community. It manages to bridge all sorts of socio-economic barriers, and promotes the community improvement of living conditions to areas of the city that need it.

This event is completely about social change, not money. There is no paid staff. Donations go back into the community in the form of beatification grants, which are used to create community gardens and landscaping.

What is confusing about Wikipedia's policy is that there are many things out there that are pure advertising, and have little or no benefit to the community at large. For example, there is a fast-food chain in Buffalo that has it's post out here. See Mighty Taco at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_Taco . This isn't advertising?

I believe this qualifies because it is a relatively unique and popular yearly event. There are other Buffalo events posted on Wik that are similar to Garden Walk - see Allentown Arts Festival (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allentown_Arts_Festival) and Thursday at the Square(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thursday_at_the_Square). Incidentally, these events are more commercial, and do not distinguish themselves in any way from other public events all over the world.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TSC12[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken gin[edit]

Non-notable hoax, claiming notability and meme. However, Wikipedia is NOT for something made up in one school day. Was tagged for patent nonsense, however, whilst it is nonsense, it's not patent nonsense.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BoundlessGallery.com[edit]

Mike Rosoft proposed this for deletion with this summary: "Spam, Alexa rank 151,630 ([48])", but the deletion tag was removed by the creator. Putting it here as the deletion is "contested". —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 23 March 2006 @ 20:55 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 20:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maynard Smith[edit]

Self Promotion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Kappa Alpha - Gamma Chapter at the College of William & Mary[edit]

While a well-written history of this fraternity chapter, it has no business in Wikipedia; individual chapters are well below our standards of notability. Don't let its length deceive you, because it's adapted from a pre-existing source. I suggest we Userfy it for User:Djrobb, the only significant contributor, so that the fraternity can move it to their own webspace: Wikipedia is not a free web host. stillnotelf has a talk page 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This comment was added before User:Stillnotelf got the nomination up): I received a notice that this article is being considered for deletion. I have been the primary contributor to this article and want to do what I can to preserve it. Can you please let me know why it is being considered and how it can be brought in line with the wikipedia rules? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djrobb (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be replying on your talk page shortly. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have refactored some discussion to the talk page. Please continue to post long discussion there only. This is not taking away from the quality of the discussion, merely making sure it doesn't clog up the AFD day page. Stifle 22:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, then delete. I had questions about its notability from the start. Andy Saunders 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War II atrocities[edit]

Inherently POV article --Philip Baird Shearer 20:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Philip Baird Shearer 21:00, 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 nomination withdrawn. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAJ[edit]

Advertisement for someone's self-published, internet-only, non-notable book. PROD deleted without comment. Note: Apparently not the same content on which we had an AfD already. Sandstein 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Nomination retracted, has received multiple press coverage per recent additions, borderline notable. Sandstein 09:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I wrote this article. I am a student from Montreal (User: Kieranfox though I'm not logged in right now) and met the author at a reading of this book. Arguments for the article: i) the author link is 'false' because I'm not aware of how to create a disambiguation and write a new author article of someone by the same name. ii) The book is not 'internet-only' but is simply available for free ALSO on the internet. I read it in a hard copy signed by the author, so I know. iii) Is the book non-notable? Have you read it? Do you have any arguments for why there is nothing notable about this book or its author? Does the fact that it is his first book make it irrelevant somehow? Please elaborate. iv) This is in no way an 'advertisement', especially considering the book is available entirely for free and no one stands to gain anything financially from this page; and as my 'relationship' to the author is, well, basically nonexistent. He signed my book once a couple years ago. I put the page up merely because the man and the book are fascinating and the information is well synthesized, PUBLISHED and available to anyone interested in reading it. I read over the What Wiki Is page. Isn't that what this site is supposed to be about, cataloguing and elucidating interesting information that has already been published and established elsewhere? Anyway I appreciate your vigilance, in that this might be construed as some crackpot simply advertising his own crap through Wiki, but honestly I would suggest you give the book a read or quick once-over (it is a short and quick read in any case) and then see if you still find its inclusion so abhorrent. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.160.140 (talk • contribs)

Hello there, and welcome to Wikipedia. In principle, you are quite right about what Wikipedia is - but I also suggest that you take a quick glance at what Wikipedia is not - namely, not a collection of indiscriminate information, or a catalogue of all the books in the world. That means, we only carry information on notable subjects - if we were to have an article on every pamphlet, screed, private thesis or self-published book, Wikipedia would quickly fill with POV cruft, grow unmanageavly large and lose encyclopedic value as a whole.
For this book, this means we need proof that more people than its author (and possibly you) care about it: a wide circulation, a noted scientific impact, substantial press coverage, etc., all through verifiable sources. Hope this helps, and have fun contributing more to Wikipedia! Sandstein 07:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandstein. Your points are well taken, and I have included links to other press coverage that I could find in online format. I have to question the notion though that more people knowing or talking about a thing gives it more value, or a more deserving place in Wikipedia, though in essence the logic is valid... but one need only take a look at pop culture to see the flaws of this argument. I think that if you really believe it's invalid, I would ask you to read over the book (at least in part), and then decide if it is notable or not, rather than assuming that since mainstream academia has passed it by, you should too. That's all I ask. If after some reading you still think any mention of it should be obliterated here on Wiki, I won't fight with the decision. Thanks. (Kieranfox)

The recently added links indicate that the book has received multiple reviews. With (weak) notability thus established, I retract the nomination and vote Keep. That said, no, I won't look through the book. That would be judging its merit, which is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Only notability is relevant (which is why we have an article on e.g. Mein Kampf). Sandstein 09:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Abd Shams ibn al-Manaf[edit]

You mean Sahaba's ancestors?--Striver 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you meant the other five you claimed that i didnt had created a article for, when i in fact had done so? --Striver 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hangarmageddon[edit]

nn-song. The album it's from is definitely notable enough, but the one song alone isn't. Any (meaningful/encyclopaedic) content regarding the song is best made on The Dark Side of Phobos's own page. Liontamer 21:50, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Dawning[edit]

nn-song, article mostly comprised of subjective analysis. The album it's from is notable enough, but the one song alone isn't. Any (meaningful/encyclopaedic) content regarding the song is best made on The Dark Side of Phobos's own page. Liontamer 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Khalid ibn al-Walid[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navlar[edit]

Non-notable webdesign company; only edited by User:Navlar. Henning Makholm 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the first to add this article and I am new to this - Navlar is a small company, but it has made contributions in Southern Ontario Canada and parts of the US - Please let me know if there is more information I that I can provide to make this entry more complete. I am looking forward to your advice - Thanks -- Navlar 09:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA and Mexico[edit]

Delete Appears to be a narrow pulpit for US-Mexico intolerance. Even if the content was worth salvaging, it should be included in another article like Mexico-United States relations (which I'm surprised doesn't exist, given the lengthy shared frontier), et al., or said article should be entitled properly (e.g., without the abbreviation). And if this is an attempt to treat Mexican-American duality, this article isn't it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:11, 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 redirected. Melchoir 22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

300 (Graphic Novel)[edit]

Article already exists under the name 300 (comic book). AriGold 22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transistasis[edit]

Neologism. Appears to be limited to English translations of Neon Genesis Evangelion and a few blogs. Excluding Wikipedia, transistasis/homeostasis gets 348/7,260,000 hits on Google and 0/215,000 hits on Google scholar. Melchoir 22:06, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of stock used by Swiss Federal Railways[edit]

Unencyclopedic. I can see lists of the different kinds of railroad stock and even which ones are used by what railways around the world, but an inventory doesn't seem to me to belong here. JeffW 22:25, 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. -- RHaworth 23:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omism[edit]

Author promptly removed a speedy tag so we will give it AfD. Non-notable nonsense religion with four adherents. -- RHaworth 22:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supa bitch[edit]

Delete, dictdef. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. FreplySpang (talk) 22:42, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

87.9 MHz[edit]

I don't see how one frequency can be important, and I can't find any other articles about a single frequency. I'm open to change my mind if it can be proven that this frequency is somewhat more notable than the rest of them, but right now I'm saying Delete Eivindt@c 22:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Metcalfe-Ballentine[edit]

Speedy contested, PROD contested. Non-notable per WP:BIO. Created the LANs of the world? Would Google better in that case, I'd say. Likely hoax. Delete. --Kinu t/c 23:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universe United[edit]

On close inspection, it appears that this organisation is only active in the University of Adelaide. Contrary to its claims of notability, it is in fact just a university student organisation, and not a very large one at that. Its lack of notability is also shown by the lack of links, except one placed on the Evangelical Union page by the creator, to which there is only a tenuous link. Sumple (Talk) 23:16, 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 Redirect → Alisyn Camerota. --Allen3 talk 16:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alyson Camerota[edit]

Deletion of this page should happen due to this page only existing due to the incorrect spelling of her name, which is actually Alisyn Camerota, which already exists || Chris 00:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin_A._Sabet[edit]

the writer of the page has received annoying/harrasing emails; the writer of the page does not want this information available on the www —This unsigned comment was added by Oxford1 (talk • contribs) .

Comment I am the subject of the page. I am not concerned with info being inappropriate/unreliable, I just do not want to be subject to so many harassing emails, etc. It is a little frightening that you all are so concerned and invested into this article! —This unsigned comment was added by 151.197.60.186 (talk • contribs) .

Response: You need not be frightened. This is pretty much standard operating procedure when someone wants an article deleted. Several of us - including me - are simply not understanding why Oxford1 wants this article deleted when you (assuming you are really the subject) seem to be notable. His explanation is very confusing. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Sorry you are receiving so many emails. Perhaps it would help to think about the fact that it is your notoriety which is spawning the emails. Wikipedia simply tries to document all persons of note, so it isn't directly the cause of these emails. -- cmh 16:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will likely vote delete, in view of the ostensible non-notability of the subject, but surely the reason given in the nomination is categorically insufficient for deletion. While the creator of a page certainly may make a case for deletion when he/she is the only author, this page has been edited (albeit not substantively) by sundry individuals, and it is not for the creator of the page to determine exclusively and individually its proper disposition. The information on the page does not appear to be OR and does appear to be available elsewhere on the Internet, in view of which fact it doesn't seem at all appropriate to consider whether the author (or subject) of the page desires that the information should be on the Internet. Joe 23:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, clearly notable political activist. The rationale for deletion is clearly specious; the subject put personal information online last week in connection with an opinion piece for a Vancouver newspaper, including his picture. Not that this article needs all those pictures of him. Monicasdude 00:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am adding the afd tag to that page... it should be on there, right? cmh 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - not sure how that happened. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted both articles as vanity. - Mike Rosoft 11:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Protagonist and Rafael Antonio Corella[edit]

Two articles: nn bio and his nn internet username savidan(talk) (e@) 23:49, 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 Redirect → Pyroraptor. --Allen3 talk 16:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pyroraptor olympius[edit]

Redundant with article Pyroraptor, and Wikiproject Dinosaurs gives priority to genus-only titles. Dinoguy2 23:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nufayl ibn Abd al-Uzza[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --JoanneB 16:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band:the tunguska event[edit]

Vanity page for non-notable band. Pugs Malone 23:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Unified School District 2006-2007 school year calendar[edit]

unencyclopedic schoolcruft – ugen64 23:58, 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.
More