< March 29 March 31 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

March 30[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 Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Abdul-Wahhab[edit]

NN. Keep filling wikipedia with all the webmasters out there? Not such a good idea Oblivious 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okei lets state the criterias. 1. Non notable The article states he is a webmaster. Unfortunately just-a-webmaster is not notable enough for the subject to be an encyclopedic entry. 2. Self promulgated website - While the website has some very good articles in different areas, Maldives Royal Family it not a website of any officialy recoganized body. Its run and operated independantly by its webmaster. Hope this is enough. --Oblivious 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lector Latinus[edit]

nn software with only three Google hits. Article created by the software's programmer. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 copyright violation. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condor Earth Technologies Inc.[edit]

Advert for minor non-notable engineering company Calton | Talk 00:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Udargo[edit]

Webcomic/blog? Found here. It's hardly ever updated and is not exactly a notable, important or notorious website is it. Alexa ranks it 2 million+. - Hahnchen 00:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack of All Blades[edit]

I congratulate the comic on reaching the difficult 38th strip, you can see this here. And you can also have a look at their 34 member forum here. No Alexa rank and less than 60 links on Google. This is not notable, at all. - Hahnchen 00:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ban the Basics![edit]

Your run of the mill webcomic, which can be found on the free host comic genesis, here. According to Alexa stats, this draws 1% of the traffic to the comicgenesis domain. Is this an extremely popular or notable webcomic? A look at Google gives back over 200 links which is not bad for a webcomic. But this website has been online since 2001, and looking at the links, it still doesn't seem to have generated a large following or garnered any critical attention. - Hahnchen 00:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts talk 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime physics[edit]

I see no way that this list of personal opinions can ever become an encyclopedia article. Big Blue Marble 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to put it here, I have looked at the cartoon physics page and figured out that if the article could be somehow changed to describing what Anime Physics means (which will be really similar to what the cartoon physics page currently has.) MythSearcher 02:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then I suggest a merge --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tough love[edit]

Dictionary definition, contested PROD. Brian G. Crawford 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: this argument could be used to justify deleting all stubs. the counter argument is that having a stub in place helps to encourage further improvement. Quepasahombre 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. By my count, we have 24 delete (including transwiki to Wiktionary), 18 keep, 3 merge, and 4 redirect. Go work it out on the talk page. Stifle 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licking[edit]

mainly nonsense. As pointed out on it's talk page if anything, this is a definition of a verb for wiktionary. It was tagged for speedy but tag removed. My vote is for Delete obviously :) ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 01:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as wider range of subjects are incorporated. Because of the many places in North America named "Lick" (as in "salt lick"), I think that "licking" deserves its own entry. -- PlsTalkAboutIt 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote from indefinitely-banned user Amorrow struck out. AnnH ♫ 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to tongue. --FloNight talk 18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also support redirecting to tongue as an alternative. AnnH ♫ 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the version that existed when listed here you'll understand ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is "silly" in it's present form and is not changed then shouldn't this article be deleted and page left blank until someone is bothered writing a serious article? Just my $0.02... ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 22:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just went and wrote what is at least an attempt at a serious article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After five days and a few hours, we have:

DonaNobisPacem 06:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD IS NOT A VOTE. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do you think you'll have to yell that before it becomes true? AfD is without question a vote. Try closing a "discussion" with 17 "delete, NN" votes and one decent argument for keeping as a keep, and see what happens.Grace Note 02:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the relevant info, including "social application" ;), is already at the article Tongue - which is what is used for licking. Any info on complex muscle groups would more properly belong under that heading, as that is what the muscles are attached to, I would think? DonaNobisPacem 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-checked the tongue article - it has info on the muscle groups/biology. DonaNobisPacem 18:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, any objections to redirecting licking to tongue? --Cyde Weys 18:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a great idea. Redirect to Tongue, per Cyde. -Colin Kimbrell 18:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde Weys and DonaNobisPacem, sounds like a good idea to me if most of the information is already there. Thanks for working it out.FloNight talk 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Tongue per above. Herostratus 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Changed vote after rewrite. Keep. Enh, why not. Important animal trait. Herostratus 21:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree; any info that is there still belongs (in my humble opinion) on the tongue page. On the Wikipedia merge page, we read that not every topic requires a page; for instance, flammable and inflammable belong on flammability. I would think that licking belongs on tongue under that argument? DonaNobisPacem 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC) I should clarify - that means, as I have said above, redirect to tongue. DonaNobisPacem 08:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is not a need to write a comprehensive article on every single kind of variation of a theme. e.g. there is no need to have a page on flammable, inflammable, and flammability. The Tongue is an integral part to licking. The use of the tongue in eating and drinking are already laid out in the Tongue article, having a page specifically for licking is redundant. If this survives the AfD, then all relevant information that is already included on the tongue page should be excised from Licking. Radagast83 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is something of a straw-man argument: whereas "flammable" and "inflammable" are descriptions of flammability, "licking" is a separate concept from tongue, just one of a number of actions it is used for. After all, we don't redirect running to foot, do we? Other uses of the tongue, such as eating, drinking and talking, do have their own main articles, even if they're also described briefly in the tongue article. Why not so for licking? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ilmari has it exactly right... There is more to licking than fits into the tongue article. In particular I think exploration of why the term is used (along with "hiding") to describe corporal punishment might be quite interesting. No change in my previous opinion of keep... ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WildOutWest Venture Consulting[edit]

Industrial-strength Vanispamcruftisement for a venture-capital firm. Created by David@wildoutwest.com (talk · contribs), who also created David Shantz, WildOutWest, as well as WildOutwest and David shantz. Calton | Talk 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WildOutwest[edit]

Blatant vanity. lots of assertions, but seems nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pennichuck talk[edit]

Prdo removed. Nonsense language, WP:NOT for some (nonsense) thing made up in a school day.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't want to make you sad, but raising the pitch of your voice to imply sarcasm on a word not normally used in that context is absolutely nothing new to the English language; it's a method of speaking that most everyone discovers at some point in the development of speech. T K E 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • GEEEE THANKS I wish this had an audio file, Keegan, so we could demonstrate. I don't want to make you sad, but isn't reading articles prolifically on Wikipedia mean you have a very, boring life? After all - you stop vandalism like there's no tommorow. I salute you! Smack-nhn 04:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will take that as a backhanded compliment. Look, it's nice to have something catch on and I don't doubt that your group has done that. But I had a History of the English Language professor who swore up and down that her family invented the word "crud" in 1955, and there is no way she would consider it inclusive as she admits there is no proof. That's from an person who knows language and dialect. Now, if I'm sitting down here in Tennessee and in six months to two years I hear this, then I will support. The point of the editors is that a few thousand teens (or adults) in New Hampshire are simply not notable. Myspace is a place to rally trends, not Wikipedia. By all means look over this place and the links pointed out, and become a serious editor. We take it seriously because there are several hundred new pages everyday that have to be filtered. I am here because I love history and English, but my job is not in the field so it's a nice way to relax for me. I don't consider you a vandal, I take your contributions assuming good faith. CC to the user's talk. T K E 05:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Pennichuck Talk is not simply a local-Interest or a small scale dialect. It is a phenomenon that is starting to take hold throught the city of Nashua and the Region of Southern New Hampshire. Due to the increased networking of young adults in today's society - what may seem as insignificant or "un-notable" can very quickly become a national trend. By killing this article before it even starts, you are in effect killing the documentation of a dialect of the english language. Already, we here in Southern New Hampshire are seeing increased use of this "talk" among young adults from other schools through interaction in sports, clubs, and other extra-cirricular activity. The fact that it has spawned use by thousands of people after originally being born from a select few shows that this dialect Demands Notation - in a few short years it has firestormed and simply deleting it because it hasn't reached you yet is killing a part of our culture. A part of our culture that could reach you in a few years. If this site is all about spreading information and breaking borders, why is there censorship on what is percieved to be "Not-Notable" material.smack-nhn 30 March 2006
  • see discussion page for reasons to keep this page alive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smack-nhn (talk • contribs) (I moved these two comments of Smack's; they were above the deletion nomination Joe 05:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC).)[reply]
  • This was not made up in a day - it has been evolving over the past 4 yearsSmack-nhn 03:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: Nope. This hasn't even spread that far in the Nashua School System. --Mike 05:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Follow Up Answer: Maybe...We don't know for sure one way or the other. And Mike - I love you - Do you wanna go to prom with me? I need a date ;)Smack-nhn 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 having no assertion of importance by Brian0918. Proto||type 11:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puman[edit]

Nonnotable, google result turns out to be 299 when Puman and WOW are searched together. This seems to be a page created by someone who had an argument or likes with Puman before. The author deleted the speedy tag twice. Olorin28 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Evidently his primary claim to fame is being a... "forum troll". 68.39.174.238 02:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC Option[edit]

Linkspam for non-notable business jmd 02:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Stifle 00:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gprime[edit]

Devovled into fancruft editing TKE 02:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. TKE 04:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Plant[edit]

Delete as non-notable. I can't much verifiable information. I have only been able to find two pages: a list of him as a run-of-the-mill real estate agent, and a page which requires payment to view the archives. A prod tag was removed by an anonymous IP. Also see Plant Organization. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plant Organization[edit]

Delete, as I can't verifiable information about whether this place even exists. This looks like it could possibly be notable, but I can't find enough verifiable information to agree to that. Also see Brett Plant. Prod tag was removed by an anonymous IP performing blanking vandalism of the entire page, but I brought it to AfD just in case. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was that there is obviously no consensus for deleting this. Ashibaka tock 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot subculture[edit]

No sources. Yes, it links to Slashdot posts; however, extrapolating anything from those posts is original research. I don't see anything on this page that is not original research. Yes, there are specific posts that support claims, but there is no evidence that those posts are part of a trend. Ashibaka tock 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.(from WP:NOR) + slashdot is a reliable primary source about itself. kotepho 03:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can verify that individual posts have been made which follow the memes outlined on the page, but you can't verify that this is a staple of Slashdot, or part of a "culture". Nobody can verify that without a difficult study which would make this original research. Ashibaka tock 03:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've changed my mind. Whle I still think that this is verifiable I do not think it is in the spirit that we need it to be. I'm sure that most of it is accurate and anyone would not disagree with me that has watched /. for a while, but what if slashdot is not around in 10 years. How would we verifiy it then(for the purpose of this thought experiment forget about archive.org/google cache/whatever)? What about 100 years from now? It would be nice if our modern cultures were described somewhere, but I do not think something trying to be an encyclopedia(in the sense of a source of reliable information) is the proper place. kotepho 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denvilles railway station[edit]

This station does not exist and never has existed. User:Unisouth has clearly seen some ruins but seems totally unconcerned by the lack of documentary evidence. Tubechallenger agrees with me - see this talk page. -- RHaworth 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Revised below.)[reply]

*Delete This may exist inside the imagination of the person who created it, I guess. I've changed my vote to Keep due to a reliable source by Vizjim. Thanks for alerting me! :) Funnybunny 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hwang Chen[edit]

Autobiography. Self-promotional. Doesn't seem to demonstrate clear notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Hmm, we do know that he makes music videos and commercials in Asia, but he is most famous for the designs of his T-shirts, well in Taiwan / HK and China at least. Hmm is it so bad that brucehchen edited his own page, if it is really him finding himself on Wiki? His name is gotta be searched in an Asian search engine though -> [8]

Keep. He seems to have received a few legitimate honors for his filmmaking. Carlo 03:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Carl[edit]

Unencyclopedic slang definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This was nominated for deletion once before on August 1, 2005 with no consensus. I merged the material in this article with Sexual slang, and redirected, but I was reverted. Brian G. Crawford 03:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalendar Koffee House Company[edit]

Non-notable coffeehouse with aspirations to being a local chain. Also advertising and apparent vanity article, as all of the previous edits are by one of the proprietors. Delete. DMG413 03:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disco nap[edit]

Neologism – ClockworkSoul 03:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omgsplosion[edit]

Neologism, dicdef. Speedy tag removed twice and prod tag once without explanation. Delete. DMG413 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per CSD A6. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Brown (teaneck)[edit]

Extremely non-notable high school student. CSD tag repeatedly removed, so here we are. Speedy delete. bikeable (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/keep. Stifle 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masturband[edit]

Contested PROD. Mentioned in a magazine article, but still non-notable. Current entry is simply a dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 03:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not stopping you from expanding it, if that's what you think should be done with it. I just don't see how notable the idea is of wearing a rubberband around one's wrist to indicate that one is "master of one's domain." I think if it's not expanded after seven days of deletion debate, it's likely never to be expanded and should be deleted. Brian G. Crawford 03:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By nominating this for AfD, you're pretty much saying you don't believe that it can or should be expanded. I disagree. I personally don't know enough about the movement to make any decent inroads, but a need for expansion isn't a reason for deletion. I know you don't think it's notable, but media mentions tend to disagree with you. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent time searching, but there is no more information avaialble with which to expand it. We've said all there is to say, until such time as someoene else writres an article about the topic. Is a single, short, magazine article sufficient to make this a notable neologism, even if no one else has ever used it? -Will Beback 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is size a deletion reason? If it is, then maybe I'll reconsider, but I'd find it hard to believe that nothing else will come of this, given its current notability. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Size is not an issue in AfD, just notability. What notability are you referring to? Aall I could find was one article a over a year ago, with a few bogs reacting in titillation. I can't imagine that the original proponents are still advocating for it, but if they have no one has reported on it. No manufacturer is known to be producing them. No church group is handing them out. It was a fad limited to three guys who managed to interest an editor enough to get mentioned in a short "man-bites-dog" piece in the Rolling Stone. -Will Beback 06:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that things discussed in RS are no longer notable? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If something has only been mentioned once, a while ago, in an small piece in the RS, then no, that is not sufficient to make it notable. If there were other mentions in the RS, or in other publications, then it might be notable. -Will Beback 04:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you voted to "keep and expand". Can you expand it? I'm interested in what else you can add. -Will Beback 04:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't know enough about the movement to make any decent inroads. Regardless, the answer to a somewhat short yet notable article is to keep it and expand it in any way possible, and not delete it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you've read the RS article you know as much as anyone, because that's all there is to know that has been published. -Will Beback 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Ninjas[edit]

It's gamecruft and/or spam. Vanispamcruftisement? Delete. -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, There are other pages like it, so, don't be bias. Thanks. Look at the Battlefield 2 Entry, if you delete this, you will be deleting all the others or I will be quite angry. Save. --MrWiddim 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What other pages of this sort? -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bring them forth, and they will be considered on their own merits, or lack thereof. -- Saberwyn 11:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finding McDonalds interesting isn't really the point; you could still establish the notability of such an organization easily, even using the fairly harsh guidlines in WP:CORP. Not really a good example for comparison. You've been given quite a bit of feeback above; perhaps modifying your article or asking some more specific follow-up questions would help? Kuru talk 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mcdonalds is a multinational corporation with resteraunts in almost every nation on the planet, with a yearly profit in the billions and close to half a million employees in the United States alone. By comparison, this is a modification of a single game, which has been in progress for over a year now, and has ten volunteers working on it. I'm sure it's going to be an excellent mod, but until the mod meets one or more of the criteria listed at the Wikipedia:Notability (software) guideline, and infromation can be provided from a reliable third-party source, it doesn't belong here. -- Saberwyn 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apprently, size matters for you. non-notable is an opinion and seems unfit for such a facutal site. Just because a person does not like the notion of a ninja, does not make something, non-notable. Spam it is not, please other smaller modifications have been listed here without doubt. (US Intervention a small modification not talked about in the BF2 community. I sense some favoritism...) I see not the fairness. --MrWiddim 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. All I see are two websites claiming direct ties to the development of this project. They are not the people to turn to for information on the notability of this project. If you could provide references to newspaper or gaming magazine articles claiming grand things for this project, then there would be no problems on keeping it.
And as for the "That piece of shit is on Wikipedia, My article is vastly superior to that piece of shit, therefore, my article should be kept"... it doesn't work that way. Until it is proven that this mod meets the criteria of the various policies and guidelines noted above by various users, it stands a very good chance of deletion. But I will say it again, if there are other articles that you believe do not meet the abovementioned criteria, bring them forth, and we will consider those articles on their own merits (or lack thereof), just as we are considering this article on its own merits. -- Saberwyn 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battlefield 2 mods contains similar articles, if someone wants to vet them (pun intended) -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And in retrospect, Saberwyn already knows that, because he added the category to the Battlefield Ninjas article...oops! -- stillnotelf is invisible 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the gaint banner is clearly an ad, the link to the main site is the first thing on page, this is spam.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What banner? What link? --MrWiddim 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ones you removed here -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better? I'm just trying to please you, I am not advertising, just teaching. (I could care if you look at the history ;p) --MrWiddim 01:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My apologies if I sounded snarky. -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, sorry If I got mad, I was just trying to be like the other mods... --MrWiddim 03:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Lacey

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nipple bite[edit]

Contested PROD. Self-explanatory concept and nothing but a dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Let me know if the page still requires protection. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Campbell[edit]

Wendy Campell, the subject of this article is a peace activist and supporter of the Palestinian people. Peace activism aside, Campell has also aligned herself with white supremacist and white pride groups such as National Vanguard and is a supporter Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust revisionist organization. Understandably, her support for such groups in addition to her frequent use of the term 'Jewish-Supremacist' has branded her with controversy.

Consequently, many people on the left, on the right, and on both sides of the Israel-Palestine dillema consider her to be racist and anti-semetic/anti-Jewish.

When the one-sided, soapbox article on the subject first appeared, many Wikipedia users have attempted to balance the article with mention of issues that have branded her with controversy. However, the user with IP address 71.102.67.133/email lioness4@ix.netcom.com (possibly Ms. Campell herself. a google search of the email adress provides plausable evidence) has repeadedly deleted any additions that attempt to bring the article to a NPOV.

Campell, or one of her supporters have repeatedly prevented others from contributing to the article and has repeatedly censured the associated discussion page. Through her actions, the subject has insisted that Wikipedia serve as a soapbox and has refused to assume good faith.

Consequently, the article has no place on Wikipedia as it is being used as a soapbox and there are questions concerning Cambells notableness. Limbojones 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links:

Comment, I've added the above-mentioned links to the article and put it on my watchlist. If we have some POV editting problems in the future, we can bring it down the RfC route. --Deville (Talk) 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Campbell -or one of her delegated lackeys- has YET AGAIN removed critical comments on the discussion page, even after being expressely warned not to vandalize and NPOV this article and even after this discussion page had to be set up in response to her constant attempts at censorship. This is further proof that while the article itself should be kept, her failure to participate in good faith makes an irrefutable case for her own removal from the discussion. [[User: Antifascist activist]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khal Shariff[edit]

Canadian web designer of uncertain notability; was listed for speedy and contested, so I'm bringing it here for outside opinions. Procedural nom, no vote from me. Bearcat 04:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Seeing as Chain Of Strength passed AFD, it's probably a good idea to go and merge them, but I'll leave that to the relevant talk pages. Stifle 14:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chain of Strength[edit]

See also the related articles up for deletion: Chain Of Strength (duplicate article), What Holds Us Apart (record), True Till Death (record).

Like the other Chain Of Strength article, this one asserts no notability and should be deleted. Aplomado - UTC 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. "Members went on to bands like who??" Grandmasterka 06:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are they not notable? They've released 2 records on a notable record label (per wikipedia notability requirements) and return 10s of thousands of google hits.Tombride 19:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notepad Europa[edit]

This software application does not appear to be noteworthy, nor verifiable. The name "Notepad Europa" returns 2 hits on Google [11] neither of which are related to this program. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Application is not verifiable purely because the owner isnt able to advertise his software as he is not yet of legal age to do so. For proper verification the software could only be verifiable under a freeware agreement. Which could compromise the developers ideas and even copyright. The only verifiable way so far the developer can give is pictures. However once he is of legal age A business name will be obtained and the software will be advertised and sold. Notepad Europa Pictures


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dust ClothingCO[edit]

NN clothing company, External links go to... MySpace. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of school pranks[edit]

DELETE Quite possibly the most unencyclopedic article I've ever seen. It violates What Wikipedia is NOT on a number of counts. WP is NOT a Dictionary, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, etc, etc. So, unencylopedic, not noteable, and much of it is unverifiable. pm_shef 06:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Even if it were to be sourced, it would still violated WP:NOT and WP:NFT -- pm_shef 16:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have to be indiscriminate, and wouldn't be made up. Needs a context obviously but, given that, there could be a perfectly good article in there. I agree a list of merry japes isn't encyclopedaic. Dlyons493 Talk 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle_Stewart[edit]

This article's author is also its subject. It's a vanity page. Valiquet 06:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, although I suspect there may be sock puppeting going on. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Ben Hanan[edit]

No claim of notability aside from being on the cover of Life Magazine. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguolabial trill[edit]

I PRODded this with the argument that the article uses linguistic terminology to describe a sound (the "raspberry" or "Bronx cheer") not used linguistically in any language. The PROD was contested, so I'm bringing it here. The main problem with this article is that it's original research: phonetics terminology does not actually provide a name for the "Bronx cheer", nor does the IPA does provide a separate symbol for it, so the author of the article invented them. Phonetically I'm not convinced "linguolabial trill" is even the most accurate description of the sound (which begins with a complete closure and ends with disorganized noise rather than the steadily repeating contact of a canonical trill, so if anything it's a type of affricate), but that's not the point, the point is, this isn't a linguistic sound, so it shouldn't be described as one, and it hasn't been described as one except in this Wikipedia article. I wish I could say "merge with Blowing a raspberry" (as in fact I did in the PROD), but in fact since everything here is OR, nothing can in good conscience be merged there. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I'm certainly in favor of adding that reference to Blowing a raspberry. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by BorgQueen under CSD:G4. Stifle 00:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick LoPiccolo[edit]

nn--fewer than 100 results on google M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard "Priest" Smith[edit]

No context, fictional (I think) character, no reason for notability, creator has had plenty of time to expand, but hasn't. Might even be patent nonsense, in which case it should be a speedy delete. Nobunaga24 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farseer Macha[edit]

Contested prod: article about a Warhammer 40,000 character which does not meet the agreed notability guidelines. Original author is claiming non-notable articles do not harm Wikipedia, which is a long-running debate, but not one to be had by article creation. Pak21 06:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilar[edit]

nn neologism used in one place only. google says other meanings of the word are far more common. signed too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Gracious, I hope that medical students aren't using Wikipedia! :) T K E 08:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicca[edit]

""Nicca" Is an alternative slang for..." no it isnt. not according to google anyway. its a chemical and camera company according to almost all of the first few pages of results - almost all the rest are for things like Nebraska Crop Associations, a musician, a minor film star, and an Italian surname. delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genuity Capital Markets[edit]

Vanity and promotional material for minor non-notable finance company. JuanOso 07:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Rotman[edit]

Non-notable individual; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information JuanOso 07:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rhodes[edit]

Claim of Vice President at a company which may meet WP:CORP is assertion of notability, but is impossible to source: only relevant search hit is a self-submitted alumni magazine note which lists him only as an Associate Director, and the company doesn't list him as an officer. Doesn't satisfactorily meet WP:BIO. Also WP:VSCA, as page was created by the subject, User:Keithrhodes. Delete with optional userfy. Kinu t/c 07:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 an attack page. JIP | Talk 10:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prab-deep singh[edit]

Nominated by anonymous user. This is a blatant attack page (WP:CSD A6), so there's really no point in AfD. Royboycrashfan 08:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmileCity[edit]

Deprodded without explanation, NN website advertisement, delete. --Hetar 08:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page want to be deleted?


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

The result of the debate was that the article was deleted by Dustimagic as an uncontested prod. Stifle 14:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early intervention for autism[edit]

Redundant information. Either delete or merge to Autism therapies Rdos 08:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of light[edit]

Non notable book relating to a non notable religion. Most of the related articles have been speedied or prodded. The prod for this one was anonymously removed without comment. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (A7) by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Proto||type 11:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee_Hawley_Hassan[edit]

This entry should be deleted because it's total nonsense.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny scubec[edit]

Please see Google results for the motivation behind this nomination.[14]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miles DeBenedictis[edit]

Article fails to assert notability. Not promising Google results.[16]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harmful[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wiktionary already has a significant article on this, so delete --Hetar 09:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Stifle 00:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jovino Santos-Neto[edit]

appears to be a personal bio and seems to qualify as nonnotable Kukini 09:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, assuming that an errant AFD is vandalism is a tad aggressive. Just undo the AFD, and move along in peace. Just a thought. Kukini 01:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ((db-repost)). Stifle 23:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolucion Neutra[edit]

non-notable band Koffieyahoo 09:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band is first of it's kind in it's country, and is a representation of the Rock en español genre of Honduras, and music of Honduras. xtreemze 09:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainism[edit]

This must be a joke. This is not a major religion. Delete Mr Adequate 09:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Stifle 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by length of coastline[edit]

This article was created by a user with only six edits to wikipedia. It is apparently based on data from [17] but I havent found it after searching for it on their site. Anyway the problem is that there is no accurate way to "rank" countries by coastline as coastlines are different on different scales and whether you include islands etc. There are huge differences with the figures given here and those of other sites such as the CIA. - on this list the USA has 133,312km of coastline compared to ten times less - 19,924 km on the CIA site. Even the order of countries is different such as here where the top five are Canada, Indonesia, Russia, Phillipines, Japan rather than Canada, US, Russia, Indonesia, Chile. This list which tries to give coastline figures to one decimal point is a huge misrepresentation -- Astrokey44|talk 09:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose it would be alright listed alphabetically showing smallest and largest figures given - but it would still look pretty inaccurate, for instance Chile: smallest figure - 6,435km, largest - 78,563km -- Astrokey44|talk 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very nice! ok I withdraw nomination after NikoSilver's rewrite since it is now based on the CIA factbook source -- Astrokey44|talk 15:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling terms[edit]

Incomplete entry, originally added with notation that it was used by permission from a particular site, when in fact most if not all the definitions are taken from other sources. Article also bizarely only goes to "C". A glossary entry of gambling terms may or may not be an appropriate article, but an incomplete one with a false reference certainly should not exist. I removed the link spam "reference" in that this shouldn't be on an article in any case. 2005 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Ratings/Ranking[edit]

This page contains nothing but extensive reporting on recent cricket results and current ratings, copied from the ICC ratings. Information about the ratings is already at LG ICC cricket ratings JPD (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The page will be pretty much unmaintainable if the original author loses interest. LG ICC cricket ratings is a much better article for an encyclopaedia, and points to a website with the up-to-date list. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A better article of a similar topic already exists. GizzaChat © 10:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete particularly per Stephen's point about this being dropped once the author moves on. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's lots of pages which link to this that'll need mods if this ends up being deleted -- Ian ≡ talk 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These links are mainly inappropriate links added in the last 24 hours by the author of this page, and should be removed even if the page is kept. I'll start now. JPD (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've notified User:80.76.228.108 (the original author) as well as User:205.143.204.110, User:205.143.204.206, User:205.143.204.198 and User:205.143.204.102 (presumably all the same person) of this AfD as per AfD etiquette. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with DaGizza. The LG ICC cricket ratings is much better. Also I would like to commend JPD on removing the link from many pages. -- Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But unlike DaGizza and Srikeit, I believe we need a lot of work done to the LG ICC cricket ratings to make it a worthwile article. I'd say delete it per Stephen, seeing as it doesn't look like it can be updated forever without a lot of effort from the contributors. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never said LG ICC cricket ratings is a well constructed article. I just said it was better than this one. GizzaChat © 13:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the author and I don't see the problem. I took an article that was over a year out of date and updated and improved it. If this article is a problem why was it not deleted when it was horrendously out of date. In this article, my aim was to gather useful information from a variety of sources, combine them into a single piece, and detail how recent innings affected the Test ratings. The LG ICC cricket ratings article is poor, and other than an external link offers no up-to-date information. I fail to see the harm that this article was doing. With regards the comment about just taking information from other sources, of course that's what i've been doing. You may as well shut Wikipedia down entirely if this is the source of your problem, because i'm sure just about everything on here can be found somewhere else on the web. I'm sorry if i've stepped on the toes of whatever club you have going on here, and am dissapointed that contributors to an online encyclopedia would want to erase information - especially as this information that can not be found in this combination anywhere else on the web. I enjoyed updating it, and my work affords me plenty of time to have done so. Please delete the article.
The article as it was before you updated probably would have been deleted if anybody had noticed. You did update it well, and made us notice it by linking to it on other pages. I agree that it contains interesting information, but it is not all the sort of information that you would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Any information that is appropriate would probably be better added to LG ICC cricket ratings, rather than in a completely separate article. JPD (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 vandalism. I didn't think it was that funny, but if anyone strongly disagrees send me a message and I'll dig it out for BJAODN. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fried briefs[edit]

Unverifiable, unproven, suspected hoax Cozzlewood 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is genuine... not nonsense, says it all. --Katch Pole Piker 10:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. I'm also taking the liberty of recreating it as a redirect to James Hill as suggested by Proto. Stifle 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hill[edit]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. GTBacchus(talk) 22:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Ljalková[edit]

No real notability claimed, although she had a pretty productive military career. Google pulls less ~125 hits. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 22:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle 22:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted as a nonsense article.  (aeropagitica)  12:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hover Trousers[edit]

Delete. Non notable. Couldn't find relevant google hits, thus could not confirm. Soumyasch 10:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Terence Ong 12:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware Lane, Melbourne[edit]

The article fails to distinguish itself from any other street or road located in Melbourne, thus failing to establish notability. Bumm13 11:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red light says go[edit]

Not notable - the band hasn't released any material, by the writer's admission. Tellkel 12:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pram Maven[edit]

Delete non-notable band with no albums. --Bruce1ee 13:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sneek Brothers[edit]

Unkown cartoon with no sources. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotmail[edit]

Non-notable perl script / software. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. GWO 13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anju Mahendru[edit]

I saw this while doing New Page patrol. I'm unsure whether she is notable enough for Wikipedia. 893 Google hits, Bollywood star with IMDB page. No vote Terence Ong 13:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was clear Delete after discounting new users and socks. Stifle 22:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Honesty Movement[edit]

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page.
The Tax Honesty Movement is a name given to a growing number of individual Americans who desire honesty and accountability in the application of the tax laws of the United States. I'm sure that you will agree that having our tax laws applied honestly and fairly by our own government is in the best interest of all Americans, including yourself. I submit that blindly obeying orders from any taxing authority without knowing what the law actually requires and to whom it actually applies is servile, unpatriotic, and un-American. These people are gravely concerned by the fact that representatives of their own government refuse to sit down face-to-face and discuss questions that they have regarding proper application of tax law. In fact, in a recent press conference, a representative of the IRS stated that those who dare ask questions will be met with enforcement actions, rather than answers. Does this fit in with the IRS mission statement which says in part:
"Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all."
The formal organization leading the effort to get substantive response from the government is called the We The People Foundation. According to your own Wiki bio, during your time in law school you state that you focused on the First Amendment. It should interest you that the We The People Foundation has a First Amendment lawsuit against the govenment currently in the courts. The question in this suit is in regard to the fifth Right enumerated in the First Amendment regarding the Right To Petition. Members of the We The People Foundation created an exceedingly polite petiton to the government which asked over 500 questions begging answers regarding proper application of tax law. To date, the government has refused to answer the petition. In fact, the government has actually argued in court that while the Peope do indeed have the Right to petiton, there is nothing in the Constitution that compels the government to answer. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should see this as insufferable arrogance on the part of the government, as the Right To Petition with expection of answer has a long and rich history dating as far back as the Magna Carta. Perhaps you should watch this case as it now appears likely to go to the Supreme Court.
Mr. BD2412, I respectfully request your participation in a public discussion of federal income tax law with one of the most outspoken members of the Tax Honesty Movement, Dave Champion, on his weekly radio show called The American radio Show. Perhaps you will do us all a favor and do what no government lawyer has yet been willing to do by slaying Mr. Champion publicly on his own radio show and forever lay to rest the Tax Honesty Movement. --dick--
The point of this AfD is not whether tax laws are constitutional or properly applied, but whether the Tax Honesty Movement is a separate concept from anything covered in the Tax protester article. Since the latter article exhaustively addresses the various arguments contending that the income tax is unconstitutional, illegal, or improper - including the belief that there simply is no law that requires taxes to be paid - the Tax Honesty Movement can snugly take up a paragraph of that article. (I note that reference to Vivian Kellems far precedes the coining of the term "Tax Honesty Movement", and should be in the tax protester article anyway, and the paragraph on the law prohibiting IRS reference to "illegal tax protesters" duplicates material in the tax protester article. As for the proferred debate, I am neither a tax lawyer nor a debater. No amount of rhetoric will stop the IRS from assessing taxes, or spring Schiff from the federal pen - if you really intend to avoid U.S. taxes and remain a free man, your choice will be to leave America, or ruin its government. BD2412 T 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

LEAVE IT AS IS!. Mr. 2412 states Since the latter article exhaustively addresses the various arguments contending that the income tax is unconstitutional, illegal, or improper - including the belief that there simply is no law that requires taxes to be paid. It seems Mr. 2412 wants to delete an article the contradicts his own POV article. Mr. 2412's article IS a POV article because the law supports the Tax Honesty Researchers. Quite simply, Mr. 2412, you are wrong. You are wrong for a very simple reason: You don't address the actual written words of law. If you don't address the WRITTEN WORDS of the STATUTES, REGULATIONS, and appropriate Supreme Court rulings, then anything you have to say about the "INCOME" tax is Hearsay. Neither do you address the distinction between what constitutes a direct tax and an indirect tax. And neither do you address what definition of "INCOME" the Supreme Court limited Congress to using; Quote: "there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act" Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) Since you don't discuss the Consitutional meaning of "INCOME" as used in the 16th. Amendment, you can't be very clear on what is taxed with an "INCOME" tax. Just on this one issue, I have 6 plus pages dedicated to showing, what the definition of "INCOME" that is taxed by the "INCOME" tax is according to the Supreme Court. Because of the Cognitive_dissonance that many have regarding this issue I have approximately 74 questions on numbered pages 4-10 on my website. The questions are in the manner of an open book reading comprehension quiz. You may access those questions here: [24].

Tax Honesty Researchers are a small, but not insignificant, and growing number of people who have actually taken the time to study what the WRITTEN WORDS of the STATUTES and REGULATIONS of the tax law actually say. And in reply to the insult about the use of the word honesty in the label: It's the government that refuses to answer questions. 1,200 people asked 6 questions of the government via Commissioner Everson and Secretary Snow. Those 6 questions and the government's non-responsive reply may be read here:[25] Perhaps you could put together a Wiki page on government evasion and use the scan of that evasive, insulting, threatening letter that does not answer the questions asked. You don't need my IP logged. Here's that website again: [26] [Note: The above comments were posted by an anonymous user at IP 4.158.201.8 on 31 March 2006.]

Anyone doubting the true nature of the "income tax" need only research the subject FOR THEMSELVES! Without relying on governement baffoons that lie, cheat and steal from the people they are supposed to work for.

Or you may want to go see "America, from freedom to fascism" when it hits theaters this summer, and watch the IRSS stumble all over itself trying to lie on camera. It is truly pathetic to watch. Or wait until congressmen are asked point blank if there are any laws requiring us to file or pay, and they say NO right on camera. The game is over, the people are aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.157.175.198 (talk • contribs)

Dear fellow editors: I'd like to suggest that maybe we should reserve this page for comments about the substance of this discussion: whether the article in question should be deleted. I argue that neither this page (nor any formal Wikipedia articles) should be used as a soapbox for people on a mission to argue that the tax laws, etc., are invalid, etc., etc. Statements such as the "law supports the Tax Honesty Researchers" and "You don't address the actual written words of law" and "It's the government that refuses to answer questions" are not material to the question before us. So let's take a deep breath and relax ......... Yours, Famspear 20:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, that's it. Breathe deeply and slowly, deeply and slowly....... Famspear 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editors: By the way, for anyone who is interested, I just thought of a fun after-school project! I'm going to take the anonymous comments by the users at IP 4.158.201.8 and IP 63.157.175.198 above, and discuss them at Talk:Tax protester. Watch that Talk page in the next few days if you're interested. I argue that Talk:Tax protester is a more appropriate page to talk about that kind of stuff, not here on this page. Yours, Famspear 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"" Keep the page ""

I do not know why these people want this page deleted. The free flow of information is what makes this country great. I remember something about the 1st ammendment but I'm not sure its allowed anymore judging on whats going on here. The same debate about creation or evolution could easily open the wrath of multitudes, but we don't delete the information simply because some nut job blows a gasket because he doesn't agree with it. Information about the tax honesty movement on both sides of the arguement should be kept free and open. Let the individual reader decide for themselves what they believe to be true or false. My take on the tax honesty movement is that it is simply a grass root movement by free thinking people who are seeking to find out for themselves what is true and what is not about the Income Tax. Those in the movement are in the process of networking, learning, and educating themselves, searching for the truth. Some in the movement may be more vocal than others. Some have even written books and devoted considerable resources on the subject, but there are no "leaders" of the movement. There are some who have used mistaken information and have paid a price for it, while others who have done more research have found where they went wrong and learned from it. Those who make claims about the tax honesty movement being "heresy" and crying out "you people are evil Tax Protestors" appear to me to be nothing less than the same ilk of book burners of histories past.

2412, the "tax honesty movement" is an adjective phrase. As opposed to the noun sentence "Tax protestor". The two are not synonymous. I sincerely suggest you look up the legal definition of the words you use before you go spouting off accusations.

A. Neuman


Ummm, at the expense of appearing to inject an off-topic response to off-topic comments above, I'd like to point out that under the rules of English grammar I don't think there is any such thing as a "noun sentence." Also, "Tax protestor" is not only not a "noun sentence," it's not a sentence at all. In English, sentences generally have to have both a subject (express or implied) and a verb. Maybe we need to set up another fun after school project on English grammar. Yours, Famspear 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Oops, I may be wrong. I think I found an example of a noun sentence in Engish. But "tax protester" does not appear to qualify. Yours, Famspear 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some definitions:
1. Tax Protester: Someone who argues that a tax is illegal
2. Tax Resistor: Someone who disagrees with a tax
3. Tax Honesty proponent: Someone who argues that the law is being misapplied
This is anything but a POV. It's verifiable fact, by anyone willing to do the research.--InteXX 01:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- KEEP There is something wrong when the government will not answer the people!

Bob Schultz and the "We The People" movement politely and respectfully asked questions to those we have elected to serve us. There was no reply.

People have been jailed without having the chance to present their facts to the jury. Irwin Schiff's trial transcripts demonstrate the government's refusal to address the truth.

Larken Rose's trial, Tessa Rose's trial and Ward Dean's trial were all miscarraiges of justice and blantent hiding of the truth.

If the tax were being properly applied to most Americans, why the continued silence except for the shouts of "Frivolous"???

KEEP IT

Finally the word is getting out, don't bury your heads in the sand any longer. This is TRUE! I have investigated it myself for years. Show us the Law!

Keep

The "Tax honesty movement" folks are not "Tax protesters." They believe Title 26 is legally correct and binding. There problem is not with the Tax Laws but with the misapplication of the law by the IRS. If those views are incorrect it should be a simple matter for the IRS to show statutes and regulations that support their position. As an aside, Mr. BD2412's POV is not supported by the findings of the Grace Commission. Further, Income taxes collected don't go to the U. S. Treasury. They go to the International Monetary Fund. I have a POV as to what the IMF does with our Tax Dollars but that is not appropriate here.

Last reply here.Mr./Ms. Famspear correctly states: I'd like to suggest that maybe we should reserve this page for comments about the substance of this discussion... Mr./Ms. Famspear incorrectly states: Statements such as the "law supports the Tax Honesty Researchers" and "You don't address the actual written words of law" and "It's the government that refuses to answer questions" are not material to the question before us. That is exactly THE material that drives the tax honesty movement. I submitted external links for the purpose of giving those that are going to be active in this decision process something to think about in regards to the tax honesty movement article. A taste if you will, of the thought process of at least one person who, after reading the written words of the statutes and regulations, has determined that the law does not apply to him.

Mr./Ms. Famspear further states: By the way, for anyone who is interested, I just thought of a fun after-school project! I'm going to take the anonymous comments by the users at IP 4.158.201.8 and IP 63.157.175.198 above, and discuss them at Talk:Tax protester. Watch that Talk page in the next few days if you're interested. I argue that Talk:Tax protester is a more appropriate page to talk about that kind of stuff, not here on this page.

Mr./Ms. Famspear, I am that person that posted from IP 4.158.201.8. I am not anonymous. Merely, not advertising my name. The website SynapticSparks is mine. If you want to take on the comments, and since your userpage states: I am an American attorney with an interest in Income tax in the United States, then how about a little one on one, you and I. You, a hifalutin big city lawyer, and me, a dumb ex-truck driver. Since you are the educated one, expect lot's of questions. I've only a few days before I am indisposed for about 2 weeks, so our little tête-à-tête will be interupted. The page is already set up for us. [27] You may send your email answer directly to me [28] as that is how your comments will be put on that page.

Save This Page. This entry is well written and only states facts, exept for the last paragraph which states an opinion. the last paragragh should be deleted. Why would anyone have a problem with stating. Such entries as "Communism", "Aztlan" and "Fascism", etc. are groups that I and a lot of other people do not agree with. I, however, would not support deleting them, because they provide usefull information. isn't this why Wikipedia exists. Save the page delete the last biased paragraph.

KEEP !!!!! It's sad when undisputable, credible evidence is presented and backed up by resignations of their own officers, extensive research by folks such as Bill Benson, Irwin Schiff and others and folks (mostly corrupt judges !!)want to call that effort null and void !!! The largest exposure of the fraud shows when the government has been invited many many times to a press conference to "stake their claim" that they've been right/legal in what they've been doing all these years and miracuously "get the flu" every time about a week or so before it was supposed to happen. Come on people, doesn't the fact they've been "ducking the issue" all these years "throw up a flag" with even the most diehard of "still tax believers" ? You're living in fantasy land if it doesn't !!!

KEEP

I'm amazed that there are those who claim this article (in its original form) to be POV. Is it not factual? If it isn't, then let's discuss those portions of the article that are not. Truth be told, the tax honesty movement does exist, irrespective of how one might feel about it. The facts are that there are a growing group of people associated with these ideas, as evidenced by Bob Schulz and the We The People lawsuit. The emergence of the internet has caused an increasing number of people to start reading the law on their own and questioning the government as to the proper enforcement of the U.S. code and Federal Regulations. These issues will not go away if the government does not answer. These are FACTS.

To ignore the fact of a growing movement as an appeal to opinionated diatribe is intellectually obscene at best, and moral bankruptcy at worst. How is it that in America a group of people who promote honest, level-headed and rational discussion of law are considered "dangerous"? In America the citizenry is entrusted with government oversight and that can only be achieved through honest, tough-minded discourse that makes use of all the facts. Wikipedia is an excellent resource in that it makes this exchange possible by providing ALL the factual evidence necessary. Burying one's head in the sand at the sound of a movement he disagrees with is inherently un-American and close-minded.

If this page is truly dangerous then we need to close down pages covering other topics that might "fool" honest people. Simply pick ideas you disagree with and request deletion. Absurd.

I see this page as prompting more dialouge covering the issue, which, of course, can be covered by Wikipedia. For example, anarcho-capitalism has its own page but with links to sites that are critical of the theory. Why not employ the same open-exchange with respect to the Tax Honesty Movement? Once again, the article is factual. Because it points to facts that some don't like is not grounds for a wild POV accusation.

And if you disagree with the FACT that this movement exists, then go to Bob Schulz's website and view the briefs being filed in federal court, the summaries of his victory over the IRS concerning a summons issue, or see Aaron Russo's film when it comes out.

P.S. I am referring to the article in its original form. BenLS 15:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Dale R. Eastman or User at IP address 4.158.201.8: Regarding your questions to me personally (see above), please see my response at Talk:Tax protester, so we don’t clutter this page with any more off-topic material. Thanks, Famspear 05:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!

Why on earth would anyone want this entire topic deleted!? Prior to the American Revolution many colonists 'went to jail' for opposing tyrannical government and oppression. One cannot justify the removal of a concept, a phrase, a reality simply because there have been penal consequences for a few brave souls that stand up for truthfulness; that stand up for clearly written rights known to many through the bible, others through 'common sense' and fewer still from our written constitution. Thank you for the opportunity. D. Davis- Hawaii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.84.114 (talk • contribs)

KEEP

There is a clear POV with this issue in the suggestion to delete Tax Honesty. To try to group everybody into a Tax protestor category is clearly a POV to degrade the message of people wanting honesty. Tax Protestor and Tax Honesty are clearly two different things. Tax protestor’s are just protesting something they owe. Tax Honesty is stating the law is misapplied.

The goal of those that are demanding the Tax honesty be grouped into Tax protestors are imposing a POV. For this reason alone Tax Honesty should be separate. The proper thing to do is to take anything in the tax protestor listing that would infer a Tax honesty position, that the law is misapplied, and move it to tax honesty. To do otherwise is clearly a POV contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. LOL Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.189.11 (talk • contribs)

KEEP

Mr. 2412's willingness to keep a category like Tax Protestor and delete one called Tax Honesty is itself a POV. It ignores the point he makes himself above. The term Tax Protestor is a POV label invented by beneficiaries of the fraud, if indeed there is a fraud, being perpetrated by missapplication of perfectly Constitutional but deliberately confusing tax laws.

The notion that lying and deception are the exclusive provence of those not in line for government pensions is optimistic at best. Most "tax protestors" risk far more than they stand to gain in saved taxes. At the same time tax collectors, accountants, attorneys and other "tax professionals" can protect comfortable incomes and benefits with no risk at all by defending a misapplied law.

If indeed it turned out that Title 26 were being misapplied and the income tax only applied to certain Federally privileged activities, a large portion of the current tax enforcement and compliance sector would have to seek honest work. For that reason alone tax professionals and tax enforcement agencies, including the federal courts, cannot be considered neutral parties to the discussion. It would surprise me if the chief advocate here of deleting the Tax Honesty heading, Mr. 2412, was not among those whose economic fortunes are in some part dependent on the current popular interpretation of Title 26.

The very persistence of a movement that questions the legitimacy of the U.S. income tax laws, in spite the possibility of heavy fines and long prison terms, is reason enough to include both Tax Protestor and Tax Honesty in Wikipedia. We do not have "protestors" or "truth seekers" involved with any of the hundreds of other taxes imposed by Congress. There are no protests or doubts of the legitimacy of excises on gasoline, liquor or air fares, for instance. Those laws are clearly written and easily understood. The mind numbing complexity of the tangle lawmakers have created in Title 26 implies a desire to deceive rather than enlighten.

It would not contribute to the search for truth to eliminate one heading or to incorporate it under the other. If they were to be merged, it should be under a truly neutral heading like "U.S. Income Tax History." Otherwise Wikipedia should not be bullied by strongly held opinion in favor of censoring one POV. KEEP TAX HONESTY AS A HEADING. —This unsigned comment was added by Hxoboyle (talk • contribs)(user's only edit) . .

KEEP AS IS

I cannot fathom how others consider this POV. The article lays out the facts that define the term "Tax Honesty Movement" without injecting the opinion of the original author. Whether or not you agree with the goals of the movement, the article does the job of defining the movement to those people who have heard the term and wish to find out what it means. I could detect no attempt at swaying the reader to a particular POV.

Ironically, it seems that BD2412 would like to see it deleted because it offends his POV. Do I really need to point out that that is hardly reason to delete it? --Scratchman 21:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT AS IS. There is an enormous amount of misinformation about the Tax Honesty Movement. Members of the Tax Honesty Movement and those known as tax protestors are two groups that do not overlap by definition. The former advocates administration of the tax law as written by Congress and as adjudicated by the US Supreme Court, and the latter objects to the tax and/or the law as currently administered, regardless of how it is written or adjudicated by any court. When the day comes that the decision to keep an entry like "Tax Honesty Movement" turns on the effect of revealing the truth and uncovering a lie, then the integrity of Wikipedia will have vanished with its value. - Mark Yannone

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Beverages[edit]

Spam Acha11 14:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was that the article is a copyright violation, and it has been blanked and tagged as such.

Cliff Simon[edit]

This article, or one like it, has been created and speedily deleted twice before; this time it's claiming some notability, but I can't verify the existence of this person (though there's another Cliff Simon whom Google picks up, and for whom I'm surprised there isn't an article). Delete as probably hoax. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 under A7 by User:Wiki_alf. kotepho 19:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hebert[edit]

Vanity page. Pugs Malone 14:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Mall[edit]

This is a non-notable mall which the article admits is small, and isn't worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. —LrdChaos 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5F Northampton Squadron ATC[edit]

Non-notable Air Cadet squadron Computerjoe's talk 15:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burshtin (Hasidic dynasty)[edit]

Originally tagged as prod due to my concerns and that of another editor on talk page, but prod tag removed by creator of article. Zero Google hits for "Burshtin dynasty" as a phrase, and I suspect that this is a vanity article. Delete CLW 16:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that this group exists for the last 30 years in Borough Park, Brooklyn. I am a personal follower of this group and you can go see for yourself by visiting the location at 12th Avenue and 56th Street in Brooklyn, NY. I can not understand your argument that there is no match on Goggle. The way I understand, Wikipedia is exactly for this purpose to get new information that was not available in any other source. User: Sunny123 March 30, 2006

Comment Actually, Wikipedia is specifically not for "new information." See Wikipedia:No original research, which is the policy for such. —LrdChaos 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burshtin_%28Hasidic_dynasty%29"

Asking for verification makes sense. See my response above. However, I can not understand how you can even think of calling this a "Vanity" article. User: Sunny123 March 30, 2006

O.K. I accept your comment about new information. So let me put it to you this way. The Burshtiner Rebbe is not new in any way. He is a reputable figure for over thirty years and Google has him referenced under "Eichenstein" which is his family name. USER: Sunny123 March 30,2006

Does anybody know the rules? USER: Sunny123 March 31, 2006

and I will try my best to give you that info. Thanks. USER: Sunny123 April 2, 2006

This is a site that I am familiar with and I added some information to. For some reason this was flagged for deletion. I do not understand this. I replied to all the concerns that were stated. I am willing to supply additional information and I can use some help in clearly identifying what info should be supplied. Please DO NOT Delete. Thanks, USER: Sunny123 April 3, 2006

Deleted some flowery statements and kept only factual statements. Hope this is acceptable to all. Sunny123 April 4, 2006

Made more corrections by major deletions: The deletion alert is up more than one week and nobody came forth to deny any of the claims made in this article. The original article is comments that are facts and accepted by a large segment of the Boor Park community. However, I tried to keep to the Wikipedia standards and therefore made major deletions to this article. At this point I believe I can not cut it down anymore and I hope this is acceptable to all. Sunny123 April 6, 2006

It is not up to Wikipedians to "deny any of the claims". The onus is on you to verify them. Stifle 12:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMAZING AND UNBELIEVABLE... how after all my deletions and improvements there are 2 users (CLW and Stifle) that are determined to nitpick and criticize this site. Sunny123 April 6, 2006

Comment - I belive that my "nitpicking" referred to above is my reversion of this edit and this edit; in both cases, [User:Sunny123] removed requests for citations, changed headings within articles to non-standard forms (e.g. with non-standard capitalisation and with colons) and reinserted deleted unverifiable statements, both times without using any edit summary. CLW 08:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEED HELP: At this point I need help from Wikipedia users that have Admin authority to evaluate my position. I improved this site to the best of my ability and I do not think that it is fair to put Citation after every word in this article. I analyzed other Wikipedia articles and came to the conclusion that if you really want to nitpick, it can be done to almost every Wikipedia article. Sunny123 April 6, 2006

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle 22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners[edit]

POV pushing article and original research. User:Medalstats (and suspected socks Them Medals and Wintermetal) have tried pushing the same sort of POV on the articles Total Olympics medal count and related articles. This table first appeared on the user's talkpage. Delete Kalsermar 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, the objections either are not valid (no POV etc, no original research, many relevant sources cited) or can easily be addressed, by inserting statements about where the data came from (namely, Wikipedia) and how the numbers were computed (by adding and dividing Wikipedia data, just like in many other Wikipedia tables). Therefore I propose to keep this (in my humble opinion) very useful table, reminding everybody that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to identify exactly what your POV is -- it is sufficient to know that some POV exists. That is clearly obvious because of your desire to "put medal counts in perspective". That implies that you believe that there is currently no perspective in the medal table. That's good! That means that a neutral point of view has been achieved by only presenting a simple summation of counts.
Other editors have pointed out the inherent inaccuracy and subjectivity in making comparisons over 110 years using only the 2004 population. That should be obvious to you too. However, I would support a proposal that added the following data (only) to those total medal table: number of games competed and first & last years competed. Those numbers are also completely objective.
Perhaps that would help you feel that there is some "perspective" in those tables. What do you think? Would that help?
However, I cannot support any proposal that combines counts from different NOCs. There was never an EU team at any Olympics; you cannot invent a medal count for this hypothetical team. You cannot add GER, FRG, GDR and EUA together because in some events, that "team" would have twice as many competitors (i.e. chances for a medal) as any other team. You cannot add BOH and TCH (or CZE) together because they represent nations with different geographic boundaries. Similar situations exist in many other places.
I agree that the notion of "total" medal counts that span multiple games may be problematic. I would prefer to see only medal table for each games individually. Those are unambiguous. However, if we are to combine totals from across games, it must be done as objectively as possible, and I think that summation by NOC is the most objective way possible. Andrwsc 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for your useful remarks! The text on my user page ("put medal counts in perspective") was badly chosen; I removed it, because that's not really what I want. I want to overcome various existing POVs by providing data (a simple summation of counts is not really neutral as it represents just one of many possible POVs without IOC support). I agree also with what you said about inherent inaccuracy and subjectivity in making comparisons over 110 years! But of course this holds not only for population data which, as you said, has changed over the years, but also for other things that have changed, such as names of nations etc. All total medal counts (with or without per capita rankings) are problematic for such reasons; mine not more so than the Total Olympics medal count which mixes Winter Games and Summer Games (btw, Summer Games involve many more disciplines, a fact that currently is brushed under the carpet). Regarding combined counts from different NOCs: the IOC charta rejects ALL medal counts, but Wikipedia publishes them anyway - then why should a count with separate NOCs be allowed, and another one forbidden? For example, summing up all the German medals is routine in Germany and other countries (typically an asterisk is used to indicate that East-Germany's medals are added), why not here? Similarly, EU counts don't have more or less IOC support than any other medal count. And obviously it's not the quantity but the quality of the athletes that counts - sending more athletes will help you only in sports dominated by luck (there are not many of this kind). I share your general scepticism towards total medal counts, and I am ready to discuss whether ALL total medal counts at Wikipedia should be deleted for the reasons you mentioned above, but such a discussion should not be limited to this particular article. If we are to combine totals from across games, it must be done as objectively as possible, and I think that my current table is much more informative and objective than a mere summation by NOC. Medalstats 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying Liechtenstein accumulated 9 medals in the history of the Olympics is not neautral you say? The IOC does not reject medal tables, they don't endorse rankings but provide them for informational purposes, as do we. The IOC site is full of medal tables. As for mixing winter and summer games... that is a non-issue as both are Olympic Games organized by the same IOC seperated only because of practical concerns such as the difficulty of bobsledding in Sydney in the middle of summer or sailing in Turin in February. In fact there have been two summer games that have in fact hosted sports that are now included in the winter edition. Finally, as Medalstats points out lower down, nobody used Hungary's 1908 population figures. Precisely why this table of his is flawed. If he did use it it would be OR.--Kalsermar 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response How can it be neutral if it does not say how often Liechtenstein participated? And the IOC charta does reject medal tables, as has been pointed out frequently, with sources. Please show me an IOC web site that endorses medal tables. But don't show me a non-IOC web site (e.g., the site of some local organizer)! I agree though on one count, Kalsermar: balanced per capita data may need work, at the risk of OR. What about removing the per capita data from the table, along the lines of what Andrwsc suggested? Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is English not your native language perhaps? I pointed out the exact opposite of what you state, namely that the IOC does not endorse rankings based on medal counts but they do provide them for informational purposes. In fact, 'all medal count tables published on Wikipedia have been compiled by using IOC pages for verification! You might want to try a novel concept here and actually surf on over to the official IOC website where you will find medal tables for every edition of the Olympics. I'll even offer a helping hand.... go here and on the right somewhere you will see somewhere down the page a link to "Medals by country". Click on it and you will get the table for Athens 2004. It even has a nice little "1." followed by "USA" to start it off for you.--Kalsermar 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This web site explicitly says: The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only. Well, that's what my table is all about: the data is displayed for information only. Medalstats 08:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Medalstats, how can your table possibly be more objective than a simple count? Do you know the meaning of the word "objective"? On top of the inherent inaccuracy of population figures, the biggest problem with your analogy is that it assumes that all medals are equal (they are not), and that medal counts scale linearly to other variables. They don't! A medal count can only be just that -- a count -- and trying to include it in a mathematical formula introduces POV because it implies a direct relationship with the other factors in each equation you present. I think most people might agree that there is obviously some relationship between medal counts and population, but I would hope most rational people could plainly see that it is not a direct and linear relationship and therefore, that ratio does not make sense.
It is becoming clear that you are not willing to consider the arguments and other suggestions presented by other editors here. I offered to support a move to add the number of games competed by each NOC to Total Olympics medal count etc. if you thought it would be a sufficient compromise, but you did not respond to that. You continue to offer rebuttals to every other message here without adjusting your position.
My suggestion is that you continue your work, but take it off Wikipedia. It is not encyclopedic. Take a look at what Herman De Wael has done at this website. He has put together a system that assigns a score to each athlete. I have always thought that something similar could be done to "score" the Olympics, and would be more reasonable than medal counts. You could take this approach and present scores relative to population, GDP, etc. I think many people would find it interesting! However, it would not be encyclopedic, and therefore, does not belong in Wikipedia. Andrwsc 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response But a classic way of making data subjective is to simply omit some of the data! In general, more data is more objective than less data. That's why I am including numbers of Games etc. But I am sorry, Andrwsc, for failing to address your support of a move to add the number of games competed by each NOC to Total Olympics medal count. That would be a good idea, I think. The number of medal count victories should be listed as well, I think, at least for the medal count winners (this is part of what the current table is about). Finally, I actually agree that per capita data should be based on year by year population data - this may need work, at the risk of becoming OR. What about removing the per capita data from the table? The other data is not subject to similar criticism. Since this seems to be the only serious issue I am addressing it again further down in my summary of 5 April. Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To summarize, none of the critics so far was able to identify a particular POV, or to back up the OR claim, or to show that the data is not verifiable, or that the source of the data is not cited. I still propose to keep the table. Medalstats 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medalstats, I'll humor you. 1)POV, look at user's contributions, the raison d'etre of user is because he doesn't like the nation on top of the medal standings and thus to try everything to get that addressed. Personal attacks didn't work (I was called an ugly American patriot once, quite the compliment for a Dutchman living in Canada!), grouping nations together didn't work, going through the Olympic Conventions page (currently at the Olympics ortal) didn't work so now he tries this table. 2)Verifiability/OR (I'll group these two together). It is original research because author performed analysis on figures purely in an arbitrary manner. Author simply added up 110 years worth of data and divided it by current population values. That is trying to make a point in author's favour. Did author gather the population figures of historical Games. Could author then perhaps describe how he got say... Hungary's population figure for 1908? Bohemia 1920? What about the EU. Surely author discounted EU medals before EU existed and correctly calculated the EU's population for each year it did. If so, that would make it OR again imo. Author cited a Australian analysis based on population for 2004. A reputable source I'm sure. What are his reputable sources of like analysis for 1932?--Kalsermar 15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much think this debate if over, because the only one giving "responses" to the affirmative side is the person who created this page. If an admin wants to close out this debate early, be our guests. → J@red  19:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be that Jared fears that the above-mentioned problems with his Total Olympics medal count will come under scrutiny in case this discussion lasts much longer? Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of friends of Jared. Medalstats 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the arguments is such that there are 7 delete votes and two userfy and only one user, the author, who actually thinks this page is a good idea. Could someone else but author explain what is POV about saying that 1+1=2 whether you're from Liechtenstein or Australia? The total medal counts have been AfD'd and discussed at the Olympics portal and consensus was overwhelmingly in favour of retention of said article if I recall.--Kalsermar 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Ah, but the problem is that most of the delete votes here and the support votes there are from a clique of users that have a record of systematically trying to suppress certain information. For example, at 23:40 25 February 2006 Jared wrote on Klasermar's user page: "As long as we continue to bash our opponents outrageous views, I think we can draw in enough supporters to make for a "pro us" resolution of these debates." So I'd argue for ignoring those votes that push their POV by forming cliques and suppressing data, and take into account only serious suggestions, such as those of Andrwsc. I'd also argue for making this article more widely known, such that those who are apparently eagerly tracking every move I make are not the only ones who present their views on this site. Finally, this is not about facts such as 1+1=2, but about the way such facts are used to make a certain impression on the reader. Omitting crucial facts (such as number of Games) is the classic approach to spin-doctoring. Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully, Medalstats, I didn't even read many of the above blurbs. I just know that 7 people think it should be deleted. Keep this debate open as long as you want, but I know it's just going to end up getting deleted. I only said that for your sake of not being humiliated. → J@red  23:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response As I just said, the problem is that most of the delete votes are from a clique of users that have a record of systematically trying to suppress certain information. For example, at 23:40 25 February 2006 Jared wrote on Klasermar's user page: "As long as we continue to bash our opponents outrageous views, I think we can draw in enough supporters to make for a "pro us" resolution of these debates." So I'd argue for ignoring those votes that push their POV by forming cliques and suppressing data, and take into account only serious suggestions. I'd also argue for making this article more widely known, such that those who are apparently eagerly tracking every move I make are not the only ones who present their views on this site. Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the debate so far: The only serious criticism has been that per capita data for all time medal counts should be based on year by year population data (already suggested in the article's talk page, but not implemented). This may need work, at the risk of becoming Original Research (OR). Maybe we could save the article by removing the per capita data from the table? I could at least temporarily live with that. The other data is not subject to similar criticism. Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! the AfD nomination rests on the premise that the whole concept of the page is POV and OR and not appropriate for an encyclopedia.--Kalsermar 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Kalsermar, the OR accusation does not hold, as shown in repetitive arguments above, and until now you have failed to point out what is my POV! You repeat there is a POV but what exactly is it? I suggest you solidify your claims or be quiet. Medalstats 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response No OR - see repetitive arguments above! And again, by your reasoning we'd have to delete the Total Olympics medal count as well, since there are no other reputable sources using its methodology and analysis. Medalstats 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Repetitive arguments from your side only I might add. Are you even from this planet? No other reputable sources use the methodology of the Total Olympics medal count you say???? It adds them up for crying out loud! You won 2 medals in 1912 and 3 medals in 1984....boom, you have 5 medals total!--Kalsermar 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for explaining how you add numbers, Kalsermar. By a strange coincidence it's actually the approach I used for my table - no OR there! But "Just zis guy" says we need reputable sources. This applies to both the Total Olympics medal count and my own table, doesn't it? How do you react to this? Medalstats 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, adding up medal number is NOT the approach you used for your table. You divide one variable by another. That is a huge difference, and that's what makes your work original research. I repeat again: your method implies a direct linear relationship between medal counts and other variables such aspopulation, and assumes that a value can be computed and ranked for that relationship. That's not true. Andrwsc 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement: I deleted the per capita data since it should be based on year by year population data unavailable at Wikipedia - as has been pointed out in the discussion above, creating such data could be interpreted as Original Research (OR). The other elements of the table are not OR though; all data are taken from Wikipedia. I hope that everybody will now be happy with this reduction and improvement. Medalstats 13:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What you mean is that I deleted all of the OR elements of the table, and you restored all but the per capita data. WP:NOR defines original research as "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments." This table is full of new synthesis of published data and therefore fits the definition of original research. -- Jonel | Speak 13:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response First of all, I am sorry that I did not mention your contribution, Jonel. But if counting and adding medals qualifies as new synthesis of published data then other tables such as the Total Olympics medal count do so too. It mixes Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics - I've never seen something like that table outside of Wikipedia. As I said before, I am ready to discuss whether ALL total medal counts at Wikipedia should be deleted for the reasons you mentioned above, but such a discussion should not be limited to this particular article. If we are to combine totals from across games, it must be done as objectively as possible, and I think that my current table is much more informative and objective than previous ones. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Medalstats, I respectfully ask you to stop your personal attacks. I also would like to suggest you set up your own website where you can address the alleged POV pushing of saying that 1+1=2 and that it really only equals 2 in certain cases depending on how you look at the data. It has no place on Wikipedia, as pointed out by different users and any analysis of suimply adding up the numbers is OR. There are no other reputable sources whop use your methodology and analysis and therefore it doen't belong here.--Kalsermar 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please point out: where on this page did I attack you in a personal way? I could point out places where you personally attacked me, but never the other way round. And your comment on "1+1=2" misrepresents what I said above. Is English not your native language perhaps? Finally, by your reasoning you'd have to delete the Total Olympics medal count as well, since there are no other reputable sources using its methodology and analysis. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that it is slightly improved, but I still have several major issues with this table, all of which would influence me to recommend deletion of the page:

Response You have a point. The best way to include population data would be to use year by year data, but that would amount to OR. What a devil's circle! On the other hand, as the population grew, so did the number of Olympic disciplines - the latest population data is quite representative in terms of former population ratios. And isn't some sort of information about the population necessary to clarify certain facts such as: tiny Norway had nearly half as many medal count wins as the 60-fold bigger biggies? Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I greatly sympathize with this view, but by this reasoning we'd have to delete all the medal counts of Wikipedia, since the official position of the IOC is: no medal counts! See this link. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The official position of the IOC is that medal counts are not used to compare nations in terms of "who beat who", but they do provide medal tables anyway. That's precisely what we do on Wikipedia. They certainly don't try to analyze the results any more than that, and neither should we. Andrwsc 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Again you have a point. But by that reasoning we'd have to delete the Total Olympics medal count as well - it skews positively towards nations that did better in the Summer Games than in the Winter Games, which have fewer disciplines! Moreover we'd have to delete ALL total medal counts as they skew positively towards nations that participated frequently. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response True. In water polo and ice hockey and relays etc the EU could not win gold and silver and bronze, but only one of them. But the EU would simply win more gold medals - maybe mention only those? Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrarily add another twist to the equations....mention only certain ones. Sounds like more OR to me, as well as making a point by manipulating data.--Kalsermar 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's leave it as is; maybe insert a footnote. Medalstats 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you take out all of these problematic items, you are left with medal counts and "Number of Games" counts, and that can be achieved by adding a column to Total Olympics medal count instead of creating this new page. I still recommend delete of this page. Andrwsc 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response While I agree that it is necessary to add such columns to Total Olympics medal count, I believe that the answers above show that the present table has its merits and deserves to be kept. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Although contrary to Olympic spirit, people do like obsessing over medal totals and rankings, sometimes by very odd criteria. But I don't see this article as making a contribution. For example, the whole point of the Unified Team was that they didn't want to be thought of as the Soviet Team. It's too diverse a topic for simple calculations to provide meaningful insights, and a more complex analysis would be original research.

Response Thanks for your opinion. Given some of the comments above, I am already glad that the delete votes are getting weaker. I totally agree that medal counts are contrary to Olympic spirit. But if we are to use them, it must be done as objectively as possible, and I think that my current table is much more informative and therefore more objective than quite a few others here at Wikipedia. Re: your specific points: I think many Russians and ex-Soviets want to include the old USSR medals in the rankings. Similarly for Germany. It's also done frequently: many sum up USSR/CIS/Russian medals and those of the various fragments of Germany, e.g., here at the all time winter medal count of the foreign Wikipedia. My table is objective in the sense that it provides variants: with and without CIS, with and without East Germany, etc. No particular POV can dominate. Medalstats 11:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a Russian or German POV respectively. We are the English language WP. I will repeat once more, the IOC provides medal tables on their site. We use those. We also have them added up to compile a total count. No POV whatsoever, in line with the IOC and in line with the supermajority views of the contributors to the pages on WP that deal with the Olympic Games. The one-issue account of User Medalstats cannot change that fact.--Kalsermar 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Russian or German POV, huh? Seems like a rather funny contradiction in itself. Traditionally the German and Russian POVs have been extreme opposites, haven't they? This is an international encyclopedia which should not endorse any POV. My table certainly does not - so far even Kalsermar himself has not been able to say what kind of POV there is. Instead he is still trying to claim that adding up the numbers for his Total Olympics medal count is somehow different from adding up the numbers for my Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. The IOC supports none of them, as explicitly stated on the IOC web site. Why is my table OR / POV but not his? One stands or falls with the other, right? Medalstats 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again.... I don't have a table. The total counts table is compiled by simply adding up the numbers using IOC provided data, how official can you be. They provide them for informational purposes and so does WP. For your information btw, the total medals count table has been through an AfD and survived with flying colours. I am heartened to see that you are beginning to finally see the light, namely that WP should not endorse a POV, so we finally agree that performing no analysis or manipulation of the data but simply keeping the raw numbers as noted on the total medals count table is the best way to go so that our readers may interpret the numbers as they see fit? BTW, I actually have stated what your POV is. One needs only to look at your contributions to see that you have a one-issue account created solely for the purpose of presenting the medals counts any way but straightforward because you don't like who's on top. If unsuccesfull, you'd rather see them deleted altogether. Now, may I respectfully ask we stop repeating our arguments ad nauseam and let the AfD process conclude?--Kalsermar 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let it conclude? And here I thought we were competing for largest AfD page ever... 45 kilobytes just ain't gonna do it. -- Jonel | Speak 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly a typical NPOV problem, but the article give undue legitimacy to its calculations. The various Olympic games have had different participants, different events, different numbers of medals awarded. There isn't a meaningful way to put them together. The weird lists like medals won by Portuguese-speaking countries or Commonwealth countries or EU countries aren't really trying to be meaningful. Peter Grey 21:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Head[edit]

Band not notable enough to merit an article


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-word titles of conservative books[edit]

Useless list. Why on earth would anyone want to read a list of books categorized by the length of their titles, let alone also categorized by their political viewpoints? Not to mention that the list is inaccurate, since every book on the list has a subtitle that extends the full title to multiple words. MysteryDog 17:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Stifle 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to clarify my vote counts here by User:Leflyman. I am first marking votes that I discounted.
There is a total of 11 Keep, 9 Delete, and 10 Merge from established users, and a further 6 Keep and 5 Merge discounted votes. Where someone made multiple votes (e.g. "keep or merge") I took the first one without prejudice. There is clearly no consensus on what to do, although if you count keeps and merges as the same you could say there is a consensus not to delete. In any case, the keep or merge conundrum can be worked out on the talk pages. Stifle 12:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraviolet map[edit]

Fancruft and full of speculation -- Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The in-progress tv show template is not a permission slip to run wild with unverified information and original research. You should still abide by Wikipedia policies, and this article is a textbook example of what an article should not be. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you thought it was appropriate for your argument to put words in my mouth, I'll go ahead and explain. I did NOT say that if we have the template we are allowed to make the article speculative, what I DID say was that the show is in progress, and a few parts of the article will end up being of a speculative nature. If you actually spent the time to read the article, you'd see that most of it is a description of the map, if you're sole argument is that there are some lines that say things like "has been speculated that", then you have no real argument. It is easy to clean it up and make it contain only facts.ArgentiumOutlaw 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated the article myself and have removed or changed almost all of the lines that could be considered speculative. Now I'd like anyone still arguing that the article is too speculative to tell me what 'theories' are being presented in the article, or what opinions of the writer are causing this article to be too speculative. ArgentiumOutlaw 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It can be mentioned, but people cannot publish speculation about it, which is what this article is. Verifiable information about it is already available on the Dharma Initiative article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Saying that it might play an important role is completely speculative. We cannot build articles on what might happen. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to your comment I agree with you that it is speculative that it might be important. However, I would also like to point out the the creators of Lost tend to put in things that come back later on as something important. For example, early on in the series they saw random polar bears...and then there was the incident with the comic book (I am being vague in case someone does not want to read a spoiler)...and the mention of polar bears on the map. These small details do come back... Jeremys779 00:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It will definitely be featured in future episodes because in the preview for "S.O.S." following "Dave", it clearly showed Locke trying to trying to recreate the map. Mongrel 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Details of the episodes go into each episode summary, what connects to what is something only the producers know at this point. Some of the information is useful but how exactly does it not fit in the DHARMA article? Arru 08:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I said in an earlier post, it probably will eventually fit into the DHARMA article...but we do not know yet. For all we know, this might have nothing to do with DHARMA but would fit in better with a different article. While I do agree with the general consensus that we should not and cannot include everything, it stands to reason that certain things that will prove to be important (and for anyone who watches LOST, you know what they are) can be left in place temporarily, until their proper "home" is found. Jeremys779 15:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course there is a lot we do not know but of what we do know, the map is 100% about DHARMA dealings. The burden of proof is on the keepers, or else why isn't there an article on the Numbers, the counter or the execute button? Arru 17:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "of what we do know, the map is 100% about DHARMA dealings", isn't that speculative in itself? You're assuming it is 100% DHARMA, but we don't know enough about the map to determine even that for sure. Just because it's in The Swan, doesn't mean it belongs in the DHARMA category. As a note to everyone who says info from the map is too speculative, you wont acknowledge even the existence of The Swan as a hatch on the map (because you keep removing those lines from our edits), so you logically shouldnt claim that it belongs in the Dharma category for any other reason than it being on the blast door (and I say that's not enough of a reason to merge with Dharma). Things are so vague at this point, that the map might even end up better fitting a merge with a character or The Hanso Foundation (if it doesn't get merged/deleted by then). ArgentiumOutlaw 22:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verifiable facts about/on the map:
  1. Large ? mark in the middle
  2. Octagon
  3. It is drawn on the blast door separating the living quarters from the computer room in the Swan station
  4. A few more text bits can be read on the larger versions (not the one stored at wikipedia)
So, for now the map is an artifact located in the Swan station just like the computer or the counter. Like PKtm says below, everything else in this article is based on the "best try" of the EW staff. Just about everything is vague in Lost, that's its main feature. As stated previously, an entire article about the map is no more warranted than an article about the hatch speaker, or about Locke's legs. Arru 10:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article's discussion of all the supposed data "on the map" is actually not based on what's visible in the show itself. Instead, it's completely dependent on the more detailed versions of the map provided by EW, etc., which is not verifiable information from the show. When I look at the map that is actually visible in freeze frames from the show itself, I can't see 98% of what is in this article, and I don't believe anyone else can either. -- PKtm 04:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote the original article based on only what was visible in the original image (first link in external links),which is from the show. The extra stuff like the formalae and the time line were written after the other image was found online, so look at the original image and compare with what I wrote originally, you'll see that there is at least a decent amount of info on it. A lot of it also has to do with where the map is, and how it was found in the episode. ArgentiumOutlaw 13:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that the article is up for deletion is because people say it has a lot of speculation. Either way, I think that this diagram is far more important than any other visual we've seen in the show yet (yes, its more important than the records), this map basically changes everything for the survivors, it offers the beginning of some explanation as to why they are where they are, and possibly where they are (much more so than the mysterious and rather vague dharma orientation video). ArgentiumOutlaw 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason is a large portion of speculative content and that the map, and what is currently known about it, does not deserve an entire article of its own. Also, the title ("Ultraviolet map") is a disaster. Arru 09:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was stated explicitly in the EW article that they got the image of the map from the producers of Lost. It is official...not fanart. Mongrel 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nephri[edit]

Game is still in beta stage with no release date. How is this notable? Thunderbrand 18:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PALMSIDE[edit]

I suspect a hoax here. But if not, this is a non-notable development - nothing relevant on Google. And if it does turn out to be notable, then it's advertising. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDWGCB[edit]

Suspected hoax from the author of PALMSIDE. If not hoax, non-notable Google has nothing relevant. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as a non-notable band. --InShaneee 03:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Silent[edit]

If it does not meet the criteria of notability, delete. Alexander 007 18:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep, but with a merge tag added. I would have tried it myself, but despite reading both articles, I'm not familiar enough with cricket to figure out if there actually is anything not in outswinger. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdipper[edit]

Terminology not in use, topic covered under outswinger. As mentioned by some other users this term along with indipper is not used and is covered in the entry outswinger. -- The Cord 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 19:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - after discounting sockpuppets/unsigned. Stifle 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mylifeoftravel.com[edit]

Only gets 500 google hits, half of which don't even refer to this site. Alexa rating can be found here. Appears to be nothing more than a nn advertisement. Delete. --Hetar 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How does 500 hits make it any less of a quality blogging platform? Surely the quality of the publishing platform would enable it to maintain a page as do the competitive platforms?

Alexa ranking for Vogue.com, possibly the best known fashion magazine worldwide, is almost 2 million positions lower. Would that suggest it shouldn't be classified as a relevant fashion publication? Find the Vogue ranking here here. Calanh 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue is notable as a magazine not a website, so Alexa rankings don't apply --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fishhead - Perhaps reviewing the site yourself is slightly fairer than your insulting dismissal of a unique product that a team of developers dedicated 2 years of their lives to producing. The most advanced interactive map of its kind, a sharing system more advanced than any other and a comprehensive information resource is hardly 'non-notable spam'. I won't reduce myself to your level but with editors like yourself on Wiki I would question your motivation or rather, your comprehension of user-generated content and its value.
      • What's insulting? I was being descriptive. I could spend two years polishing a turd, but it would still be a turd. Fishhead64 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I must say, the fact that one has to register on the site in question in order to view the "sample" blog linked from the article is an ingenious method of advertising. --Kinu t/c 07:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. --Kinu t/c 07:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horny teen[edit]

Colloquialism. Original research. Generally not encyclopedic. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I usedd scientific terms to denote a non-scientific term Then one should also delete the article on the word "Fuck" according to that logic.Abc85 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But "horny teen" is a very frequently used expression such as "Germanophobia". Google gives wasy over 1000 hits : [37]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 09:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-skill[edit]

This page reads a lot like an ad for something that's not really defined well (ICT; the entry on the disambig page for that is two red links and a poorly-written description). Google search turns up about 650 hits for the query ict "e-skill" -wikipedia and many (most? it's hard to tell) have no relation to this usage. —LrdChaos 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the disambig page again, this seems to make a little more sense. The page doesn't really provide any context (which, I know, isn't grounds for deletion), but this still seems like a non-notable term/concept (< 650 Ghits for the search string '"e-skill" ict -wikipedia'). —LrdChaos 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was now being dealt with by WP:RFD. Proto||type 09:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pengulin[edit]

I'm actually rather stumped at this one. It's a penguin with an 'l' in it, but I'm pretty sure no such creature exists... I've Googled it, no luck. Looks like some strange vandalism. And judging by the taxonomy, it should be a mammal, right? Spiffy42 20:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malta National Socialist Party[edit]

Delete, non notable; fails google test; never contested electionsMaltesedog 20:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G4, reposting of deleted content. Stifle 00:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Marie Ritter[edit]

This page was just voted to be deleted under the name Christina Ritter. Self/promotion - non-notable actress.

Delete per above. Maltesedog 20:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as re-posted content. Makemi 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This user removed the above votes by TBC, Maltesedog, Makemi, Blue520, Ryboycrashfan, and Daniel Case. And is also trying to ballot-stuff - the above three votes were added in one edit. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and Protect once deleted. Last time, on Christina Ritter, the article was recreated within 18 hours. Fan1967 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another vote-stuffing. The user added four of these in one edit. User:Fame live4ever deleted most of the above votes. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry The above four comments were all added at the same time by 67.111.134.249 (talk · contribs). Recommend that this IP, as well as Fame live4ever (talk · contribs) be blocked. Fan1967 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following entries were apparently deleted by Fame live4ever: (Snip, see below -w4) — RJH 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I restored all of the stuff the anon people tried to nuke. Nice try. Too bad we have this thing called "History tab". =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fame liver4ever I see you all are judging based on very little evidence. You haven't clearly stated your reasoning, and reports of her being false...I'd like you all to back that up. Show me firm evidence that this actress is a fake, which you have failed to do so far. The reason I have bent some rules is the fact that almost everyone on here is being inexplicitly rude to me in their consideration about this page. I have been almost cornered as if you were all a pack of dogs and I was an innocent newbie. Yes I've done bad deleting some comments, but it was because you all did not fairly consider my proposal. I wish you all could see how unfairly you have treated me, and at least consider my arguing case. (By the way only two of those are my puppets, not all) Also you saying she's played bit roles, doesn't mean she shouldn't be on here at all. Again with your lack of consideration. Try to be fair, please.

Please sign your messages properly. Regrettably, we have certain notability criteria, and that means we can't include every bit player just because. We realize having an article you've worked on slated for deletion may cause some stress; please let this be a lesson and always approach the deletions with calmness, rationality and present objective proof on why the subject is notable. And if you have no such evidence, don't take undue stress if the article is deleted, consider if it is notable to warrant a mention somewhere else. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the policies Information for Wikipedia must be VERIFIABLE. It is not up to anyone to prove the entries false; you must be able to prove them true. You claim she's in the new Pirates of the Carribean movie. IMDB lists a dozen major cast members and 73 supporting actors. None of them is her. Every piece of information you have posted about her (about yourself?) has proven impossible to verify. Your actions in trying to pretend to be multiple people, and in repeatedly changing and vandalizing entries in this discussion, cast serious doubts about your honesty in general, so your unsupported word doesn't count for much. This has gone on long enough, and I recommend a Speedy close to this debate. Fan1967 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. We should post Suspected Sockpuppet notices on these latest voters. JackO'Lantern 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete We are forgetting this is a nn actor. We are forgetting this is reposted content. Let's not forget to delete this, but make sure the deletion is quick and fast. J.J.Sagnella 20:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article was boldly merged. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official hijackers of the 2001 attacks[edit]

POV fork of Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The list of persons here is already listed and the title of this page is too POV. I already moved the page to a correctly spelled version as the first one had the word Official spelled as offical. Delete--MONGO 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since i created the article, i decided to go ahead and merge the article. Feel free to revert me if you dissagre. --Striver 11:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frogmore amateur cricket club[edit]

Not notable cricket club (if it even exists). No google results for "Frogmore amateur cricket club"[39]. feydey 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Logic can be pretty funny sometimes. feydey 23:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Bowman[edit]

Dear editors- yes, I entered the article myself, but I need to learn the proper Wikipedia format, relevant links, etc... in my defense the entry is as relevant as Logan Whitehurst or Jim Shelly (musician). I undertsand if you have to delete the current version. Thanks- MJB

  • Good on you for not trying a "keep" vote. AfD-nominated articles are judged by the existing policies and guidelines, including WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. As there are a lot of "a topic is notable if ..." type clauses, and no two topics are identical, it's always best not to try and compare pages, especially ones with borderline notability. I hope you stick around, if you are indeed MJB you should have a lot to contribute Deizio 22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Please don't take the vote as a commentary on you. It's very big of you to cede to wiki consensus and I do hope you stick around and contribute what you know. --Mmx1 01:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this is out-and-out non-notable bio; but there's a lot of bio and I fear some notability I can't see lurking in the article. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Heck (producer)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Pressman[edit]

Most of it's a hoax, and the rest is unsalvagable. Ral315 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please present some evidence of the falsity of the entry, as the man is my uncle and I can attest to most everything on the page. Your smugness offends decency. talentlesshack (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have just admitted this is a vanity page. Delete, because he is non-notable. Royboycrashfan 21:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where in my last statement did I admit this is a vanity page RoyBoy? Mr. Pressman was a huge force in the design community in the 1970's and 1980's who fell out of favor after a severe break with reality. I think that is pretty fucking notable. The fact that I am a relative of the man proves nothing.talentlesshack (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that I can see to keep this link around is its mention within google_bomb. I am going to check and see if that was just planted link.--68.226.22.177

Adam Mathes, a blogger and computer science major at Stanford, is generally credited with having coined the term "Google bombing" almost three years ago to describe the practice of manipulating Google results through seeding the Web with links. Mr. Mathes started a Google bomb as a joke at the expense of a friend and graphic artist, Andy Pressman, managing to get Mr. Pressman's blog listed as the first result for the phrase "talentless hack." New York Times, Jan 22, 2004, pg G2. Thatcher131 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! Congratulations on your FIRST EDIT!!! <fireworks> Deizio 00:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't me. At least, not this time. kotepho 00:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
T'was I, and I now say, delete. I also suggest there is something fishy in that the creator of the article, TalentlessHack (talk · contribs) is also the phrase that was linked to Pressman by the original google bomb. Thatcher131 02:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cappy, you've got 2 Andy Pressmans confused. The architect has written many books and appears to be notable as an author. The graphic designer (subject of this page) was the subject of the googlebomb and is otherwise nn. The only one of the 11 unique hits on google [46] for "andy pressman" +"graphic designer" with direct relevance to the subject is to his personal blog. The nominated page is otherwise a hoax (have you seen the page? the artwork?) and the author has not only included nonsense about the death of the pizza delivery guy here, he put it on Pizza delivery as well. He's been spreading other cruft as you'll see from the diffs above. On the Pizza deliver page, it says that Andy Pressman shot a pizza guy called Sanjay Maryani (he redlinked him for good measure) - guess how many googles for their combined names? [47] Kinu caught it and reverted. Deizio 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can also confirm that Andy Pressman the architect is not the same person as Andy Pressman, graphic designer. Thatcher131 02:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already warned User:Talentlesshack about vandalism. Time for something stronger? Deizio 07:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on comments here and on Snakes on a Plane, it would also appear that User:RichieValentine is a sockpuppet of Talentlesshack. Deizio 07:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Stifle 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keele Rugby Club[edit]

Delete, non-notable sports group consisting "of two men's teams and a women's team". Only 11 hits on Google. Royboycrashfan 21:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASA'S PROJECT BLUE BEAM[edit]

UNconfirmed, unverified, possibly hoax conspiracy stuff. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted as unconfirmed and unverified in the second sentence. An article about the theory and its history as opposed to an article supporting it. After all wikipedia does host an intelligent design page. Google turns up 500k of results, it is worth mention. I think it is worth keeping but that is just my opinion. --Meawoppl 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy Deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 00:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Flores[edit]

seems to be nonsense or an experiment, and after 4 months has not been improved IslandGyrl 21:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condoleezza Rice visit to Blackburn and Liverpool[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 deleted as neologism - we don't take words as they develop, only after they've finished developing. DS 15:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaloogian[edit]

Why delete it? I vote to preserve.

neologism makes it original research Xander76 22:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be deleted because it's not a word that is being used widely (or even narrowly) with that definition. According to the page on deletion, neologisms are candidates for deletion because they constitute original research, and the fact that there are no citations in the article arguably breaks verifiability. The incident with the photo that this definition refers to was publicized within the last 48 hours; I would argue that this article is an attempt to create a new word. That seems like reason enough to delete to me. I am, however, very new to this process, so please forgive me if I am mistaken/stepping on toes. Xander76 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No reason to delete. IT's a new word, but certainly could enter the lexicon. yawanur

If wikipedia is to be the encyclopedia for the new century, it has to accommodate innovative and catchy slang as it is developing. We should keep the word. And honestly, since the congressman is a lying shmuck, who cares?

Personally, I don't see this word catching on, but whatever. Maybe include a NPOV note up top, but it's a bit early to delete it. - HG

Agreed -AS

There are a lot of words that could enter the lexicon and haven't. I could make up a few right now. Until it does enter the lexicon, though, why should Wikipedia cover it? Doesn't that amount to suggesting new words and conducting original research? Xander76 22:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave it -CBH

I agree that there should be an NPOV note--but this is clearly not original research. Blogs are already using this term, and a friend of mine referred to something as 'Kaloogian' today as well. Let's keep it.

Interesting; I would have thought this would be a pretty obvious delete, but as I say, I'm super new to this. Can anyone who wants to keep it explain to me why they think the article is not original research? The guidelines for deletion indicate that "Original research (including the coining of neologisms)" is a valid reason for deletion. Thanks. Xander76 22:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, the only example of this usage I could find was in a blog referring to the Wikipedia entry, which raises the odd possibility that the Wikipedia article might actually create the word and thereby justify its entry in Wikipedia. Makes my head spin. An NPOV note might be a good route (especially given that the example sentence seems to me a little snide), but if the word is in use, there should also be some citations, yes? Xander76 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and you would have though right Derex 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a slang and/or idiom guide. Also, if blogs are being considered as a valid source, its time to review WP:VERIFIABILITY again. --Hetar 22:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the slang/idiom debate for a bit, it's being used on blogs is kind of irrelevant. That has nothing to do with verifiability. The definite article is also used frequently on blogs, as is the past tense of verbs, and their credibility is not in question.

There are two problems I see right now: one, if it does exist around the blogs, it's unsourced. Two, how is this not a dictionary page? Why Wikipedia and Wiktionary? Notapipe 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it.--Dickius 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition appears OK. This incident has been reported by the AP, not just by blogs. The word may or may catch on, but there is no reason to delete it. -JAR

I say preserve. Preserve with extreme prejudice. - WRD

This is not a discussion about whether the incident itself should be included in Wikipedia. It in fact already is in the article for Howard Kaloogian. The question is whether an article about the very new slang term "Kaloogian" merits an article. I say no, for 3 reasons: (1) As Hetar says above, WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and entries that just define a word do not belong. WP:NOT also specifically says articles defining slang terms are not appropriate. (2) There is no sourcing in the article, and WP:VERIFIABILITY says that sourcing is considered to be the burden of those who include an entry in Wikipedia. (3) The article feels NPOV to me, especially given that the example sentence has a partisan tinge. Any of those reasons seem to me reason enough to delete. All that being said, if the word actually becomes widely used in the blogosphere, and we have good sources for that usage, I could agree that it might merit a sentence in the Baghdad Photo Incident section of Howard Kaloogian. Xander76 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete. I am personally politically aligned with the left, and thus hope this word catches on and takes root. However, I support deleting this page, for the following reasons: 1) it belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. 2) it is a clear violation of the "neologisms" section of the Deletion Policy 3) the only arguments for keeping it are partisan.

If the word catches on and gets citable use, then this entry can be re-created in Wiktionary with appropriate references. But as it is, I'm not willing to tolerate left-wing political slander just because it aligns with my personal prejudices, just as I don't oppose right-wing political slander just because it conflicts with them. - Meowse

Delete. This bozo was at 7% in the polls and was not a serious contender to become his party frontrunner even before this particular episode. I disagree with the argument over blogs: TPM, Kos and Atrios all have much larger circulations than most regional newspapers. Medium should not be grounds for disqualification, notability of the source should. If this became an established term even if only on the left there would be an argument to be made. As it is the subject matter is simply not botable. This pipsqueak is not worthy of the contempt. -- Gorgonzilla 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit it. The closest equivalent term I can find to this is Santorum which is in Wikipedia on the page for Savage_Love. I think the content needs to be changed, but not removed all together. Wiktionary would be the appropriate place for a definition, but the background of how the word came to be would seem appropriate here. - sterno74

Uhhh, I think Eponymous political slanders needs to be AfD'd, no disrespect intended. The examples (even the "successful" ones) are not all that citeable, and Wikipedia shouldn't be repeating slanders. Phr 08:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and if you sock puppets want to put in your two cents, you should learn how to vote properly. Stev0 00:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionable delete this whole Kaloogian thing took place this week, and it's covered in his article. This is absolutely absurd; it is not a word in wide-spread use. This article is posted on a very well-known blog, which is where all the anon's are likely coming from. Derex 00:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it wasn't clear from what I've written above (and the fact that I proposed the article for deletion), I am in favor of deletion. Apologies for not being totally clear on the official voting procedure; this is the first thing I've done on Wikipedia as a registered user. (edited to reflect the fact that I am was mistaken in calling myself a sock puppet; an idiot for not understanding the term, maybe, but a sock puppet, no.) Xander76 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the word comes into common usage, or even becomes persistent internet slang, then it might be appropriate to give it a definition. But it's been less than a week since it was coined, and odds are the guy'll be forgotten in another week. Evan 00:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This word MIGHT eventually enter common usage, in which case it MIGHT be eligible. But the word has not entered common usage at this time, so it is not acceptable.

Delete as unverifiable, unless, prior to the end of the AfD comment period, someone provides a good, verifiable source citation, from some source that isn't in Kaloogian's neighborhood, that shows that the term is in reasonably widespread use. And the source should not be the coiner of the term, because it is important to show that the word is being adopted. At the moment, as I write this, the article contains no source citations whatsoever and thus completely fails the verifiability policy which is linked at the bottom of every edit box. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly this neologism is too young and does not pass the common usage test - Maximusveritas 01:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents- preserve it. The methods and degrees of lies/subreptions we're seeing from the Republican Party with regards to the Iraq War are nearly unprecedented in human history, so of course there are few words to adequately describe them. I believe this term should be retained. It seems clear that it will be widely accepted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.41.89 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When it is clear that it is widely accepted—and that acceptance can be supported by verifiable source citations—then we can and should have an article on it. Not before. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mutton Chop Productions[edit]

Non-notable production team based in Vermont. Article indirectly advertises itself. Put up it's alternate article, Mike Littlehale, for speedy deletion; db-bio. Same person who created Mike Littlehale is the same person who created this article. Moe ε 22:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle 23:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Taipei_American_School_Superintendents[edit]

Merging into main Taipei American School article. BenjaminTsai Talk 22:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Move to Wikipedia namespace. Stifle 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket packet[edit]

Non-notable is only the start. The article was created by the "inventor", and therefore is unverifiable original research. Deltabeignet 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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)) Stifle 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pfeifer[edit]

Completely non-notable vanity page. Chairman S. Talk 22:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is def. not a non-notable vanity page. while he might not be notable now, he is an up-and-coming actor/skier that you will be hearing of very soon.

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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 01:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

John Conner[edit]

This article has been recreated and deleted a couple of times as have related items.

This appears to be a one-man "movement" eager for self-promotion. There is already a short mention at Georgia Guidestones, which should be sufficient. Will Beback 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LIARS! The Infowars link is NOT broken, you forgot the NYPOST, Rollingstone, Mike Walker Show, MSNBC, Pakistan Daily News, CNET, etc, and make it seem like 'a small town newspaper in georgia' is the only reference. You must be a bunch of homos.

UMMM....AND WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE OTHER VOTES?? INCLUDING MANY, MANY KEEP VOTES? AAAAHHHHH REMEMBER? IS SOMEONE TRYING TO SWAY THE 'ELECTION'  ????

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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to Canadian College of English Language Rob 09:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian college of english language[edit]

Completing AfD. Appears to have been AfD'ed by the author (User:Ccel) who first tried blanking it. User's only edits are in this article. Fan1967 01:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Selfdelete :P. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diablospeak[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. BD2412 T 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don Croft[edit]

not encyclopaedic

Comment. Was that "sounds as though he is a notable..." or "sounds as though he was a notable...". Am I being unreasonable in thinking that an encyclopaedia article should be clear about whether the subject is alive? Midgley 11:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. THat would be "delete without prejudice", IE if someone writes a new article then there is no reason it should not be good and be kept. THis one is too bad. Midgley 14:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DÅÅTH[edit]

Seems like an nn-band at the moment. HappyCamper 23:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, bad faith WP:POINT nomination. Proto||type 10:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emo Philips[edit]

Meets none of the guidelines for notability listed in WP:BIO. The hundreds of thousands of stand-up comics out there do not each merit their own pages. A few guest starring roles on old TV series and unnamed background roles in a few independent films do not constitute merit for inclusion on Wikipedia. Deathntaxes 23:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's only edit is the vote above. Brian G. Crawford 00:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:ReekerReaver's only contribution is the above vote. Looks like we have some sockpuppetry going on. Brian G. Crawford 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sneftel's only contribution is the above vote. Looks like we have some sockpuppetry going on. And BTW, comparing a relatively obscure stand-up comic to the Beatles is a ludicrous argument and you guy(s) know it. ReekerReaver 00:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I'm sorry. What? --Sneftel 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Given that the nominator and the only voters for Delete are users with no history, I recommend closing this AfD as a bad-faith nom. Fan1967 01:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete - among established Wikipedians, the vote is about split. BD2412 T 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Inside_Carolina[edit]

Message boards are not suitable for Wikipedia joekiser 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a web directory, but your statement is false; it does cover message boards which are notable (compare Slashdot, Fark). --Sneftel 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it was a bit premature to be thinking about WP:SNOW with only a handful of votes. kotepho 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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