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

The result of the debate was delete (~5 keep, ~13 delete). — FireFox • T [21:23, 6 April 2006]

Not a Number Technologies[edit]

Blender (software) is notable, the defunct company that made an early version is not The company name returns 396 google hits and seems to fail WP:CORP also. JoshuaZ 21:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it was once notable, since it once was the company that distributed Blender. Many companies that were once notable have articles (ex. Macromedia, which is now part of Adobe and thus no longer exists). Where ^(talk) 23:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blender isn't quite Adobe. Delete as NN. RGTraynor 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, if their only reason for notability is one piece of software, then perhaps merge any of this info to the software's page? --Deville (Talk) 01:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or merge the article into Ton Roosendaal --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge If all they were notable for was a notable software they should be there, not have a separate article that has no hope of being significantly expanded. JoshuaZ 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:KIT. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:39

• Comment Er... um... the Pokemon test isn't a real test, and in any event, if we went by that test seriously then it would probably be more inclusive than even the most extreme inclusionists. The relevant test is WP:CORP and this doesn't meet it. JoshuaZ 01:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable corporation. Brian G. Crawford 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Brian G. Crawford. Funnybunny 02:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I know this is somewhat unorthodox thinking, but bare with me. When we have a band that's a one-hit wonder, WP:BAND says that not only is the song notable, but the band is now notable as well, even if they were to never release another song in their entire career. Along the same lines, I think a company that releases notable software, even if they only last 4 years before bankruptcy (like NaN), is similarly notable. Therefore, I say keep. (However, if consensus becomes to delete, I recommend the merge and redirect be to Ton Roosendaal, as it makes more sense to mention NaN in that intro paragraph than in Blender's.) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Ton Roosendaal article is one line, so a merge/redirect wouldn't do any more than a page move. Not to mention, the article has little potential to be expanded. We'd all agree that the Baha Men, a one-hit wonder band that comes to mind, were a little more significant than a startup/bankrupt company. --Jay(Reply) 03:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable corporation. Ifnord 03:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable, as per Ifnord.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. Eusebeus 07:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Interesting point about bands - but quite a different market. Marcus22 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a graveyard of dead dotcoms. They might even outnumber Pokémons. Sandstein 17:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Blender (software). -- JLaTondre 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable corporation perBrian G. Crawford. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 18:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to either Blender (software) or Ton Roosendaal. - Drahcir 05:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep once notable always notable. Wiki is not paper. Jcuk 15:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Blender (software). The article has no merit on its own. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 1 April 2006 @ 23:47 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep . — FireFox • T [21:24, 6 April 2006]

Stargate: Battle for Mankind[edit]

Cruft mod--Zxcvbnm 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge a notable and succesfull mod for the Battlfield series with thousands players over its lifetime as well as orginal content. Verifiable, notable, and with thousands of hits on google. Kraf 02:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the above user recreated a deleted page(s) that was deleted for being cruft.--Zxcvbnm 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Funnybunny 01:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or redirect to List of Battlefield 1942 mods --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep. Notable enough for making a complete article.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The string "Stargate: Battle for Mankind" only gets 766 hits on google, hardly thousands.--Drat (Talk) 06:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Battlefield 1942 mods. --Terence Ong 12:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep as per Kraf. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its for battlefield Vietnam, not 1942... --MrWiddim 04:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not according to the article. -- Saberwyn 21:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep there is a large audience for Stargate related entertainment and an even wider audience of game fanatics. Perhaps the article could be improved, but that's not sufficient reason to get rid of it. Ande B 04:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Googling the following searchstring ["Stargate: Battle for Mankind" battlefield -wikipedia] results in 118 unique hits from 642 total results. [Stargate "Battle for Mankind" battlefield -wikipedia] gives 126 unique from 785. Amongst the top entries, I cannot find any critical reviews for this mod, or any evidence presented backing up the claims of popularity. If such verifiable information (from reliable sources) can be provided, I will reconsider. -- Saberwyn 21:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Remy B 14:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, cruft mod. Radagast83 20:19, 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 merge to MediaWiki. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimail[edit]

Non-notable vanity. Wikipedia needs not articles about functions in the MediaWiki software. Delete. Off! 21:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Wikipedia. Mikker ^... 16:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. Funnybunny 00:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into MediaWiki, as Wikimail is available on all MediaWiki powered websites --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to MediaWiki, per TBC. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to MediaWiki per TBC. --Terence Ong 12:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to MediaWiki as above. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to MediaWiki as above. Non-notable MediaWiki feature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per above Bridesmill 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above --Ugur Basak 21:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --Latinus 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to meta or Move to Wikipedia or Help namespace. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --((subst:user|4836.03)) 06:46, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Freedman[edit]

Incomplete nomination by Toughlove – Ezeu 17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable.--Ezeu 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, as the article currently stands. --Oscarthecat 17:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep cant help feeling that playing to royalty is notable, and that winning the magic circle close up magician of the year [1] ought to be too. Jcuk 19:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as notable within his field[2]. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). — FireFox • T [21:26, 6 April 2006]

StreamSQL[edit]

Found this on prod and I think it deserves an afd. This is surely ad copy that needs to be rewritten NPOV. Mentions in popular media: MSNBC/Forbes.com Washington Post (though trivial) eWeek [3] [4] [5] [6] database journal [7] and more on google. No vote yet. kotepho 20:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Full disclosure - I was the one who prodded it. Now much cleaned up but I find the notability a bit suspect. Dlyons493 Talk 21:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this article is certainly ad copy. --Deville (Talk) 04:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Revised, NPOV, and facts added Updated article based on above feedback.(DMParent 22:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Weak keep or merge anything important to Michael Stonebraker or SQL --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete I think this article will sort itself out as standardization efforts progress. I killed off the marketing and added more techincal detail. Tibbetts2c 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverting to Strong Delete. Adding The leading company in StreamSQL implementation and standardization is StreamBase Systems. (complete with link) doesn't equate to killed off the marketing in my mind. Note that Tibbetts2c's only edits have been to this article (created by User:Sbmarketing) Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is decent enough for me to vote keep. kotepho 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killed the implementation section entirely. That addresses the above point. There are multiple commercial entities using StreamSQL-like approaches to solving this problem now, so I vote to keep it.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, possibly merge. Merging can be discussed on Talk:Lens mount. Stifle 23:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing lens mount[edit]

Not certain this is an actual term. Seems to be somewhat describing lens mount, which is already covered, but strangely that article was started by the same anonymous user, so I think (s)he intended to describe separate terms. English might not be their first language (IP is in NYC); I suspect that "lens focusing element(s)" might be something closer to what is meant, but can't be sure. Nonetheless, Googling for "focusing lens mount" doesn't seem to turn up much relevant to what is discussed in the article. Anyone with further knowledge, please proffer it! Girolamo Savonarola 20:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know anythign about it, but if it's verifiable, I think it should be merged to lens mount. JPD (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to lens mount or perhaps autofocus --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as above. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:38
• Delete Never heard of it, there is nothing of value to add to lens mount and I cannot see the usefulness of a redirect. Egil 03:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per TBC. --Terence Ong 12:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as per Emailuser. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Sandstein 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how are we to merge something that no one yet seems to be able to verify or understand anything about? I'm not against merging, but let's be honest here, who would do this and how? Girolamo Savonarola 19:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to lens mount. Green Giant 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems the idea is to differentiate between lens deigned for use with View cameras were focusing is done by moving the lens mount and a lens for a camera were the lens mount is fixed. This info is already in the Photographic lens article. Merging it into the lens mount article would not make sense because it’s describing a property of lenses and not lens mounts. Seano1 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with lens mount please Yuckfoo 06:18, 5 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 a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Barnaba[edit]

vanity article Rklawton 01:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD. dcandeto 01:06, 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 01:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabula DiBeaumarchais[edit]

Not notable - only a handful of Ghits outside wiki mirrors. Prod tag disputed, so bringing it here. Note I've prodded the site GayCork also.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, likely vanity. Bucketsofg 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete anyone could do a drag.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all --Deville (Talk) 03:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn-bio, vanity. --Terence Ong 12:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity --HolyRomanEmperor 14:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn-bio --Ugur Basak 21:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Latinus 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Also check GayCork again, "prod" tag deleted there. --John Nagle 18:32, 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 Speedy deleted as combination of A7 biography, A6 attack page and general silliness. Capitalistroadster 03:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Shoenberg[edit]

vanity article - should be usified Rklawton 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete CSD A7 -- He is "actually a mummy brought back to life" and stole "a space pod". I'd go for creative writing over med school -- Samir (the scope) 01:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, nonsense, non-notable, and vanity --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, as per TBC - would make a great Wikipedia contributor/editor, though Rklawton 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. vanity; patent nonsense. Bucketsofg 01:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: A7, obviously. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:02, 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 01:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kepco[edit]

Delete. Request for significance was removed without explanation. Non-notable company. discospinster 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is bad, even for SPAM. As short as it is, I still managed to find a factual error and bad grammar. Rklawton 01:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable private company. Dlyons493 Talk 01:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article makes no claim that the subject meets WP:CORP, and it likely doesn't. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article asserts no notability. JIP | Talk 06:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn company and spam. --Terence Ong 12:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. joturner 12:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. _-M ^o P-_ 16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn-company --Ugur Basak 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Latinus 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promo spam. David Hoag 08:13, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Misadventure[edit]

Non-notable comic. 4 Google hits. Speedy tag pulled once and prod tag pulled twice because of added content. Still not notable, though. Delete. DMG413 01:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB; no Alexa ranking [8]. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable but also violates WP:BIO. It's written by the comic creator. It's very close to being a CSD-A7 speedy delete really. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 12:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. MikeWazowski 14:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Latinus 23:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bige1977 05:45, 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 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placebo security[edit]

Self-admitted neologism, supposedly invented by one Ivan Scalise. Gets 83 unique Google hits, many, if not most, not directly related to the alleged original meaning or alleged creator. Was prodded, but tag removed by creator. -- Calton | Talk 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn neologism.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-admitted neologism. JIP | Talk 06:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn neologism invented by a random guy. Grandmasterka 08:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 13:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously neologism. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Latinus 23:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, be calm :) I have removed the tag 'cause I have used the term "neologism", and I have seen that neologisms are not always eliminated. I'm present to an university lecture, time ago, and one of the speakers was the "random guy". Some days ago, I was to a lecture on the information security and, in a slide, his thought has been taken back... This way I wanted to share what doesn't seem a "common neologism" with you. I have not created "my personal page", I have shared only a form of thought that I like. Now, if you want, cast the stones! ;) --Torment 12:33, 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 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kabal (rapper)[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable - consists only of an autobiography ripped from website Virogtheconq 01:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as copyvio. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable even if the bio was legit. --Deville (Talk) 03:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per above. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Because it's so unverifiable, how do we know it's not a hoax? How do we know that there is no Kabal? Speedy delete as copyvio. Lord Bob 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 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 no consensus--Adam ^(talk) 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Hayward[edit]

Vanity article from User:Jamesnice - some of them published by what seems to be his own company LTM (which he's been link spamming around various articles). Other by little-known publishers and with very low Amazon rankings. But I'd like the community's opinion on this one.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some of his titles may be vanity or POD, but several seem to meet notability standards, most conspicuously "Myths & Legends of the First World War." Note in particular this edition [9]; very few vanity books are reissued in large print editions. The main publisher of the book also looks legit [10]. Monicasdude 02:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just a hair width shy of vanity per Monicasdude but completely non-notable. Ifnord 03:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, not notable enough. Sandstein 17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My first two books were self-published, but that is not the same as vanity publishing at all. They have both sold several thousand copies. My later books are for Sutton who are a large UK publisher. Both these books have also appeared in translation abroad, as well as the softback and large print editions. Is the criteria by which a writer or publisher should be judged their 'Amazon ranking'? Surely not. It's pretty naff to have to justify myself in this way, but several of the 'delete' comments are plain wrong. Plenty of other minor writers have written their own Wikipedia entries. It isn't wrong per se. James Hayward. 20:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC) contribs) 19:40, 31 March 2006.
• Keep Notable enough, more notable than some writers with articles. Piccadilly 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, worth keeping. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I saw at the time that it was a vanity article but after checking and adding the BBC link I felt it/he was notable enough. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:20, 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 04:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Jefferson[edit]

nn hoax bio; Real Salt Lake didn't exist until 2005, the New England Patriots are an NFL team...delete.  RasputinAXP  c 02:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:HOAX. Only 193 unique Google results [11] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax Bucketsofg 02:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as (poorly researched) hoax. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 13:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is obviously a hoax. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of research i have done. Real Salt Lake didn't exist until 2005, the New England Patriots are an NFL team...delete. color="green">e]] non deletion this could be talking about a youth boys team or matb even a reserve or small team

• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 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 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford High School Tribe of Pride Marching Band[edit]

I attend this school and I have to say - sorry if this offends anyone - this band is not particularly notable. They are one of the best in the county, but that's not saying very much to be honest. And for crying out loud, it's a high school marching band that hasn't won any notable awards - we had such an outcry over the high schools in the first place, so... yeah. (by the way if this goes through then obviously I'm notable too - I've won 1st place in national competitions before) – ugen64 02:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No obvious notability, little substance to entry (nor potential for expansion). Look forward to multiple articles re ugen64's exploits however. Badgerpatrol 02:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom and badgerp Bucketsofg 02:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. If someone wrote an article on the school, I'm sure it would be worth a mention there though. -Dawson 02:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable; I would support reasonable and non-vanity information in a future article about the school. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I love marching band and think high school marching bands are particularly great. However, HS marching bands aren't notable enough to be encyclopedic. As others said, could make a nice section in an article about the high school. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. JoshuaZ 04:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- into an article about the school if such an article exists. - Longhair 05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two line article on small aspect of a single high school. Would support a mention of the marching band's existence and name within the article on the high school. Note: Article on the high school does not exist at this time, although Stafford Municipal School District covers the district it is in. -- Saberwyn 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article I nominated is about Stafford High School in Virginia - that school district is in Texas. – ugen64 20:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad. It's hard to get it right when the Americans have cities with greater population than my country. -- Saberwyn 23:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable marching band. JIP | Talk 06:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn band. All school bands are non-notable. --Terence Ong 13:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Slightly disagree. If a school band had won multiple national or international level band competitions(presuming they exist, I don't know enough about it) then it could reasonably merit its own article. JoshuaZ 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Kinu. youngamerican (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 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 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EElementary[edit]

Deprodded. This website doesn't register on Alexa. Enough said.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable webpage. Bucketsofg 02:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Interesting, and seems like it could be great someday, but not notable now. Grandmasterka 08:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn-website--Ugur Basak 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 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 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bradley[edit]

DELETE - County level candidate (who lost) for political office in South Bend, Indiana in 1999? Has a book out from a vanity publisher? Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder if the creator of this page and the subject are the same. Looking at one of the editor user names, I would say yes. People, if you want to make a self promoting page, at least choose a user name that isn't in anyway related to your own name. Nobunaga24 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vanity page. Brian G. Crawford 02:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VANITY and WP:BIO --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Montco 06:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong userfy. This is a really well-written article, although it doesn't have any standard assertion of notability. If this guy is anywhere near as knowledgeable as his vanity article claims, he could be a magnificent editor! Let's give him some encouragement!! Grandmasterka 08:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and userfy, vanity bio. --Terence Ong 13:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, standard yet well-written vanity. _-M ^o P-_ 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 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 04:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeafSpot.net[edit]

This is an advertisement. Brein 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia isn't an advertising host. Funnybunny 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 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 keep.--Adam ^(talk) 22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA and September 11 (book)[edit]

The book has only been published in German, and not in English. I think it needs to be translated and published in English, with the English-language version widely circulated before it meets notability criteria for an article. Another critical issue is Verifiability and reliable sources to really know and verify what the book says. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. I want to point out here that even dewiki does not have an article about this book; just an article on the author - de:Andreas von Bülow. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see hope for salvaging this article and reconciling the issues with notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the time being. Book should at least be available in English before inclusion. Thatcher131 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Thatcher131 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Change vote to Keep. The article is vastly improved from the original, which was less than stub quality. It now addresses my primary concern, which was notability. Honestly, I would not have imagined that anyone could have taken such a weak starting point and develop the article to its current state. Good work by the editor. Ande B 05:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC) for English language article. Could be mentioned in article about the author Andreas von Bülow. Ande B 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Or Merge with related article(s), as I urged on the discussion page when the article was first posted. Ande B 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I realy wish I hadn't listed the "not English" language issue in my comment eariler. I see that it has caused some consternation and was not my primary motivation. The book is simply not notable. It has not had a visible social or political effect that warrants separate attention. It is a valid part of the Von Bülow article or any number of conpiracy articles. I read plenty of books and watch plenty of movies that are in languages other than English, and would have no problem with many of them getting their own articles. But this looks more tabloid, yellow press quality to me. (Sorry, I forgot to sign this before Ande B 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep please see WP:BIAS boys. Eivind^t@c 05:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which is more to the point. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment best seller in a major market. Eivind^t@c 06:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete MONGO 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge because, quite honestly, we only need one article on 9/11 conspiracy theories and this is just a stub for a book that makes the same claim. Why we even have to discuss a book that claims that the damage to the Pentagon was faked by the military is beyond me, but apparently any crazy idea can get in wikipedia as long as there is enough muddying of the waters to close an AfD with "no consensus". Thatcher131 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Last time I checked, Wikipedia wasn't Amazon.de. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merge (see below) Relevant content will be referenced under the author; this does not warrant its own entry. Eusebeus 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep. A extremely notable book by an author with an apparently extensive political background. Language or cultural disparity is never a good reason for to delete an article if it has attained sufficient notability, there is a far-reaching precedent that individual books by notable authors get their own articles, and it's ridiculous to think no-one would want to see info on this. Besides, I would consider this to be more than just a stub now. Grandmasterka 09:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frage: auf welchem Grund, behaupten Sie eine solche Bedeutung? Eusebeus 11:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If kept, it should be renamed The CIA and September 11. Since there are no other articles with the same name, the "book" disambiguation is unnecessary. -- Kjkolb 11:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The title is sufficiently confusing that (book) is necessary. Otherwise you get the misimpression that the article is about ties between the CIA and 9-11, not just a book that purports that link. --Mmx1 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Terence Ong 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to its author's page. I don't believe a book or movie must be in English for it to be covered on WP, though the article must of course be in English. dw-world.de covered it (in English) as a bestseller, if you follow the link from the article. Esquizombi 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not notable to the english-speaking world because....guess what? we can't read it. Recreate when a translation is available. --Mmx1 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article has been much improved. --Mmx1 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Notability exclusively to the english speaking world isn't a criteria for inclusion in WP AFAIK. I don't know that there is a policy on excluding topics that are notable to foreign-language audiences. There are a lot of subjects that are important (even if this particular book is deemed not to be) that have not been translated into English. I don't know if there is a policy explicitly stating that untranslated books or films, etc. can be included (the absence of a policy that they cannot implies than can IMO) but Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English comes close I think. Esquizombi 15:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Edit: And also Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Title_translations which is "a naming conventions guideline for the naming of wikipedia articles about books" which states "books that haven't been published in English (yet) are preferably referred to by an English version of the title" which would also appear to indicate articles about books that haven't been translated into English are acceptable. Esquizombi 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. But Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English mentions a translation should be done independently and sourced, rather than translation by a Wikipedian, so that the article is verifiable. Given this is a highly controversial topic, I'm loathe to take what the article here says about "Contents" of the book, without proper references and preferably an english translation of the book that I can look at. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BIAS is somewhat relevant here. And it is verifiable, because any of the numerous German speakers on this wikipedia can verify it (such as Señor Eusebeus, who responded to me.) Grandmasterka 17:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Actually, the RS does NOT say that Wikipedians cannot do translations. It indicates they may be "performed by a Wikipedia editor" and that it is OK for "editors [to] use their own English translation." Certainly it is generally better (as stated there) to use outside translations (though sometimes a wikipedian may be able to provide a better translation than the ones available elsewhere). This isn't so much an issue with this article, which does cite to english language sources and external links. Esquizombi 18:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I would like "the opportunity to verify for myself what the original material actually said". But, I can't do that here. Given the book is so popular in Germany, it's likely in due time that there will be an English translated version of the book. At that time, I wouldn't object to an article here. Until then, I have problems with being able to verify the article. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment It seems to me you're cherry-picking that guideline which states "In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said" (emphasis added). And again, that's not an issue anyway because there isn't any translation of the contents of the book in the article, rather it appears it was composed by reference to english language articles about the book which given that WP is a tertiary source is acceptable. If there were translated text from the book you could order the book and a German/English dictionary or plop passages into Babelfish and get an idea as to whether the translation may be accurate or not. But again, there's not, so that's not an issue. Would there be a good place on WP to discuss the broader issue of articles about untranslated subjects?Esquizombi 19:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's not giving any credence to its notability when it's not on de.wikipedia.org [13]. The best it gets is a line in Andreas von Bülow [14] -- Samir (the scope) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Using the deWP to argue a topic is not notable is weak, IMO. There are plenty of English-language books, films etc. that meet WP's notability criteria and are not on the enWP yet, but that doesn't mean they're not notable. Esquizombi 16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not weak, in my opinion. A claimed #3 best seller in English is probably on the English wikipedia. I haven't been swung over by claims of sales which are unreferenced. Provide a better reference of its claim to notability than german.about.com. Until then, I take the absence on the German wikipedia to be telling -- Samir (the scope) 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I repeat, I don't think the absence of an article on the deWP proves it is not notable, any more than the absence of an article about an English language book on this WP proves the book is not notable. It only proves nobody has added one yet. There's no article on Barbara Hodgson, for example, or any of her several critically acclaimed and award-winning books, one of which is being adapted into a film (I should work on that). Additionally, the dewiki only has "378.316 Artikel" versus the 1,054,498 articles on this one. Look at the article again; there are better references there than the about.com one you singled out. There are other references to it as a bestseller, for example The Boston Globe.[15] Esquizombi 01:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Put the references in the article. I wasn't aware of the Boston Globe reference, and have to use circumstantial evidence like absence in the German wikipedia, which I think still counts for something (i.e. an article on Barbara Hodgson would be more likely to appear in en.wikipedia than de.wikipedia) -- Samir (the scope) 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, seems to be important in the German-speaking world. en.wikipedia, while based and written in English, is not an encyclopaedia for exclusively English topics. Lord Bob 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above - our ignorance of other languages does not mean we should delete articles about material written in them. For great justice. 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Grandmasterka et al., notable book by notable autho, notability is not exclusive to the Anglosphere. There are more than enough really crufty 9/11 POV stubs around, let's have at these. Sandstein 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn in .de (and yes I speak german....) Bridesmill 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (stricken, per Bridesmill's request below. -- noosphere 17:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment What does "nn in .de" mean? If you're referring to the fact that there is no article on the de.wp, that only means that nobody there has been motivated enough to add an article for it, not that it would not meet their notability criteria. If you're referring to Amazon.de, it appears to be ranked 3,029 there[16] which isn't too bad for a three year old book. Esquizombi 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - please delete my previous Delete - article very much improved, as it is right now it stands as a fine example of critical book review. Still not a particularly notable book here; are we going to do article of every book that has any level of notability anywhere in the world? Bridesmill 12:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability isn't exclusive to the so-called "Anglosphere;" I quite agree. Its inclusion into Wikipedia.de should take place forthwith, and I encourage those who approve of it so highly to take care of that. RGTraynor 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your seemingly snarky remark is unappreciated WP:NPA. I don't approve of the book, but I do approve of an article about it, because it appears to meet criteria for notability and does meet WP:V. The sources for the article are english language articles by Deutsche Welle's DW-World.de, Newsweek, and the twelve-year old online newspaper telegraph.co.uk which strike me as reliable and also speaking to the book's notability. Esquizombi 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't think that was a personal attack by any stretch, I should observe that, while I would be happy to add it myself, I don't speak a word of German. Lord Bob 22:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "those who approve of it so highly" is what I objected to. I'm quite willing to vote keep on topics I don't approve of (like this one) if I believe they merit inclusion. The article's content is verifiable with reliable sources and the book appears to be notable. Ich spreche nur ein bißchen Deutsch, so I'm not sure I'd be qualified to add the article to the German wiki, though I had created an account there and have managed to order German-language books and movies from Amazon.de. Esquizombi 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• WEAK WEAK WEAK Keep This article is about the BOOK not the CONTENT, if it is a popular book and a best seller in a major market as somsone stated then it should be included. Remember the references have to be in english or translated to english, but the book does not. We are not argueing the content of the book, but rather its notability. Mike _{(T C)} 19:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if it's number three in Germany with sales of 100,000 (though I'd like to see evidence of that), then it's definitely notable. Not being translated into English is not a criterion for deletion. We have lots of articles about non-English television shows and movies. I mean, what about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, for Goo's sake? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon has been translated, though. But there are other films on WP that haven't been. Esquizombi 00:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been translated for tv viewing, but it was subtitled when shown in theaters. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Presumably someone translated it in order to make the subtitles? Christopher Parham (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, decent sources and appears notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ich verstehe nicht: it is not clear to me, nor have I seen addressed in this discussion, why this content is not better considered at the entry on Andreas von Bülow; it is hardly as if that article is so overwhelmingly long that it cannot accommodate more information, and since the book is the vehicle for the ideas of the man, surely it is a better place for it. Why keep this in a separate article? The fact that it is in German, is really a canard. If this is kept this time around, I recommend it be renominated with a suggested merge to the author to avoid an unecessary debate about language. Eusebeus 09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (Postcscript: WRT several points made above, this is very unlikely to receive an article on de.WP, since their standards for inclusion are generally much more stringent and, per precedent, any such article would almost certainly be flagged for deletion forthwith and the content moved back to Bulow's main German language entry. So inter-wiki referencing here wrt notability is not apposite. Eusebeus 09:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment In the case of people who wrote only one book, and especially if they are primarily known only for that book, I would agree with you. In this case, since he is the author of at least two books and is known (or at least had long been known) for being in the German government, I'd be less inclined to advocate merging. As it is, it's unfortunate so much of Bulow's own entry is about his 9/11 beliefs. I haven't tried to read the de.wiki's deletion policies, but they do have an article there on the apparently untranslated English language 9/11 conspiracy book de:Crossing the Rubicon, so I'm not sure Bulow's book would be deleted. Esquizombi 13:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep book seems notable per all above to me Jcuk 15:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria :

Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify. --Striver 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sure looks notable to me. Barry Zuckerkorn 19:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. the book has gotten attention somewhere in the world so we should be talking about it here. That's what we do. Is the nom suggesting that the whole world should speak English and if they don't we should ignore it? Frankly, I think that kind of thinking is dangerous for the spread of knowledge. Language was not a barrier to the exchange of ideas in the 18th century and I don't see why it should be in the 21st century. -- JJay 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable despite the language. feydey 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge'. The article is well organized, and the organization takes up as much room as the content. It's a stub, notable or not. I'm not even sure the book is original. If it ever gets translated, it can be deconsolidated from related articles back into its own.--Pro-Lick 00:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since when does something have to be in English to be notable? As for verifiability, there are plenty of German speaking Wikipedia editors who can do that. -- noosphere 22:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I am concerned, translation into other languages is indicative of the extent of a book's influence. The more translations, the greater the distribution, influence, or interest. Without wide distribution then I would look to social or political consequences of the book and I just don't see much in the way of consequences for this particular book, regardless of its origins. YMMV. Ande B 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the first two sentences of the above comment. Namely, that "translation into other languages is indicative of the extent of a book's influence" and "the more translations, the greater the distribution, influence, or interest." However, it does not follow that just because a book may not have been translated in to English, then the only criteria we can use to judge its notability is its "political consequences". It's not at all clear how one could judge the "political consequences" of a book in a NPOV way. It may be relatively clear in the case of some exceptions like Mao's Little Red Book, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, and the scriptures of the major religions; but in the vast majority of cases books just don't have any obviously visible political consequences. However, that doesn't mean they're non-notable. I think looking at the sales numbers of the book in question as a sign of its notability is perfectly acceptable, even when there's no English translation. By excluding popular books that haven't yet been translated in to English we're encouraging systemic bias and hampering legitimate research in to a given topic by English speaking individuals who may be interested in how that topic is percieved or interpreted in the rest of the non-English speaking world. Besides, the English language publishing industry is generally not interested in books in translation: only a miserably tiny fraction of foreign language books are ever translated in to English[17][18], likely for business reasons that may have little to do with their notability in the rest of the world. Why should Wikipedia defer to the English language publishing industry to the exclusion of the rest of the world, when we can rely on perfectly legitimate indicators of their notability elsewhere (such as their sales in other countries)? -- noosphere 01:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - this article has come a long way since being nominated for AfD. There are three claims being made about: firstly it is NN. I disagree: it has sold 100,000 copies, which is very large for a "non-fiction" (allegedly!) book, especially in Germany. It was the hot topic of the 2003 Frankfurt Book Fair - and as a book, not just as the work of Herr "Cranky" van Bulow". It is extremely controversial as a book (not just as a selection of views) because of the quality of sourcing - this is an issue about the German publishing industry, not 9/11, therefore we need to consider this book as a book, not just a selection of (what are largely seen as dangerous/bizarre) views associated with one man. Secondly, it not verifiable. I disagree, there are plenty of English languages secondary sources on this book and I have tried to improve the referencing for the article so that it is now clear exactly where each statement in the article can be sourced from. (Haven't finished just yet, will probably take me another hour to incorporate another three English language sources). Thirdly, it is synonymous with Andreas von Bulow and should be merged. Again, I disagree, we need to treat this book as a book for the reasons I have given already plus the fact that Andreas von Bulow has had a long career and is important as a politician in his own right. If we had a balanced biography for him, perhaps the bottom quarter of it would be on his post-politicial retirement conspiracy theorising. However, that is unlikely to happen as in the English-speaking world he is best known for his controversial views on 9/11. Those views do not "define the man" and this article is about more than his views, it also considers the books as a publishing phenomenon, as part of a zeitgeist for similar publications, and as a controversy within German publishing. TheGrappler 16:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am certainly coming to this late in the day, but this seems to be one of those cases where the nomination for AFD resulting in a much better article. Multiple bases of notability are now laid out with references. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand to FA. - Darwinek 11:02, 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 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shohei Suzuki[edit]

This page is a super-short stub, and I don't think it has any potential (I've never heard of this guy). The Republican 01:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Move to Wiktionary This doesn't have much potential (though I could research it) so it would be better off becoming dictionary material or deleted. Just delete it. Funnybunny 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wiktionary? Wiktionary is for word definitions, not biography stubs --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay. I edited my vote. Funnybunny 04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BIO, only 112 unique Google results [19] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn bio-stub. Doesn't even get a good amount of hits on Japanese Google. Wish there was an easy way to filter out Wikipedia mirrors... EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use "-wikipedia -wiki -gnu" in searches to get rid of most of them. If necessary, I also add some terms that are more likely to exclude non-mirrors by mistake. Since you are just trying to determine the number of unique Google results, you could pick a unique phrase from the article to exclude instead. -- Kjkolb 11:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn bio. --Terence Ong 13:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 06:40, 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; redirect is not needed, in case nobody has noticed yet. - Liberatore(T) 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC), create a redirect in place. - Liberatore(T) 16:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Store Brand[edit]

Non-notable; clearly doesn‘t satisfy WP:BAND. No Allmusic entry, no recordings listed on Amazon, zero Google hits for “Store Brand” + “Justin Noble” (the lead singer). Prod was contested. Delete. dbtfz^talk 03:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BAND and WP:VANITY --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Storebrand. Eivind^t@c 05:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a reasonable option too. dbtfz^talk 06:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is weird, it looks more like it was written by a fan than by a band member. The radioplay assertion is interesting, but still fails WP:BAND. Redirect to Storebrand Store brand. Grandmasterka 09:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Store brand (NOT Storebrand). Proto||type 10:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Store brand. --Terence Ong 15:25, 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 speedy delete by Marudubshinki as an attack page. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan T. Landry[edit]

Non-notable biography of a self proclaimed "Renaissance Man". 14 unique Ghits for "Jordan T. Landry" [20]. A search for "Jordan Landry" reveals nothing related to the article. IMDB shows no Jordan T. Landry on "Fever Pitch" (but oddly shows a Jordan Leandre). That and he "he commands fake army battalions in repeated invasions of Mexico and Canada" -- Samir (the scope) 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom -- Samir (the scope) 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is the most massive piece of biographical dribbel I have ever seen. K-UNIT 03:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Funnybunny 03:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity, hoax. (BTW, the Jordan Leandre in the movie was a 4-year-old cancer patient who sang the National Anthem at a Red Sox game.) Fan1967 03:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Gflores^Talk 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real, I've been to a couple Landry's Furniture Barns before and heard about him. Quite talented for so young. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl6822a (talk • contribs) (creator of said page)

Alright, delete it, but you've got to admit it was pretty good.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl6822a (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom pm_shef 03:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And also Mr. Samir, if that is your real name, you should know I have a very pretty face. Sorry Samir, I take that back. It should have been aimed at Mr. TKevin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl6822a (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Digestive Collectivism[edit]

Wikipedia is Not for things made up in school. The link provided has nothing to do with this phenomenon. It's unverifiable. Was prodded and de-prodded. Delete. Makemi 03:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFT and WP:V --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well written, it's a shame. But, per nom, Wikipedia is Not for things made up in school. I hope this editor turns to real subjects. Ifnord 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with nom; agree that the guys who wrote this should be encouraged to write articles on real topics -- Samir (the scope) 03:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. The movement in question was indeed founded on school grounds, but its members are engaging seriously in public promotion of its ideals. As one of the main editors of the entry in question, I can say that I do very much respect Wikipedia and the fine people who are responsible for its functioning. More work will be put towards seeking similar movements and linking them, for the principles expressed in PDC are certainly not unique. The article has only been in existence for two days. Give us more time to make it one worthy of Wikipedia, please. —This unsigned comment was added by Monsieur Prolong (talk • contribs) .
  • I'd like to say again this was a well-written article, the problem is the subject. No matter how you expand or rewrite, it will still be deleted. Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia though, we need good writers. Ifnord 04:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day. Well-written but ultimately pointless.  (aeropagitica)  13:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NFT and definitely unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to the uncyclopedia. Cute BJAODN, if I understand this correctly, these folks have re-invented and re-named an interesting concept formerly known as sharingBridesmill 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• But guys, Jim didn't share his sandwich on March 29; surely that's notable, no? Of course, notwithstanding the humor and quality of the article, delete, per Ifnord, inter al., is surely appropriate. Joe 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 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 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Ku (film)[edit]

vanity entry about a nn film. Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable film --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and jumbled with advertising and self-promotion. Ifnord 03:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - to quote from the article, "too bad"... MikeWazowski 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn film. --Terence Ong 15:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Piccadilly 19:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn--Ugur Basak 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Cool3 01:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shoebox Project[edit]

Recreated article on a Harry Potter fanfic, but content isn't similar enough to be a speedy candidate. De-prodded without comment by an anon. -- Vary | Talk 03:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as it failed it's first AfD. Ifnord 03:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CSD G4, as per Vary and Ifnord -- Samir (the scope) 03:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:57, 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 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Cameron (time travel)[edit]

The only sentence that even attempts to establish notability starts with the word "Allegedly" Deville (Talk) 03:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:VANITY, WP:V and likely WP:HOAX --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Google search of name and "Montauk" yields 700 hits. Ifnord 03:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not clear about whether this man is trying to pass himself off as a sailor who was on board the USS Eldridge. There's not enough information to determine notability, and anyway, it's probably crankery. Brian G. Crawford 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable enough con man or crackpot. Article should be retitled , current form is NPOV, and evidence of debunking added to satisfy NPOV requirements. Refer to Philadelphia Experiment. If it weren't for the movie and the related X-Files episode(s), he wouldn't be notable; but in their shadow he's notable -- becoming notable by parasitism is still becoming notable (cf Kevin Federline). Monicasdude 05:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reserve comment I would vote keep per Monicasdude if his assertions of notability can be backed up. Has Cameron or his lectures attracted the attention of any notable paranormal debunkers or been covered in any way by independent media? For borderline notabilty merge and redirect to Philadelphia Experiment. Reserving comment per addition of facts. Thatcher131 05:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sadly not even notable for being a crank. David | Talk 08:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- non-notable crackpottery. The El Reyko 09:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Eusebeus 10:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless Monicasdude can really prove this guy is also married to Britney Spears. Proto||type 10:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn, hoax unless Monicasdude can verify this information. --Terence Ong 14:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ---CH 23:47, 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  (aeropagitica)  17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasis[edit]

As mentioned in the article and associated talk page, this is completely unfounded terminology which does not appear in any medical or online resource or publication in the scientific literature. Alsorises 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V and WP:NEO --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Resurrection of Jesus or disambiguate. This unfamiliar word may have some currency, especially in Eastern Orthodox church, as a theological word for the resurrection of Jesus or the general resurrection of the dead. Smerdis of Tlön 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Somebody's using Wikipedia to promote a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Google book search shows no hits for Anastasis and radiation together. Anastasis appears to have other meanings including the resurrection, or some part of a church. If someone wants to make a new page with this title, as a redirect or an article, on a legitimate topic like this, then of course that's cool. (There's the additional problem that this incorrect use of anastasis will remain out in cyberspace on sites that have copied the article from Wikipedia... oh well...) --Singkong2005 14:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article outright admits it's not verifiable.George Bluth 16:33, 5 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 all. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twodeadsluts Onegoodfuck[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 04:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding I_Stuck_My_Boner_In_The_Blender_"The_Pinkest_Demo_Ever", The_Mystery_of_the_Lost_Maps_Means_Battle_For_The:_HOMOROBOTS, and The_Homorobotic_Adventure_Squad_Presents:_Songs_For_Blastings_Lasers_and_Fighting_Evil_Doers to this AFD as they are their albums. kotepho 05:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep How many states do you need to hit to be a 'national' tour? They seem to be covering a decent amount from their website. On a somewhat related note, the reviews are hilarious. kotepho 05:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not impressed by national tour, don't think they meet WP:MUSIC, but agree that the reviews are absolutely hilarious. -- Samir (the scope) 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Intrigued as I am by these "belligerent mental patients on a meth-binge" (as one review puts it), they clearly fail WP:BAND. dbtfz^talk 06:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The 90's didn't produce much in the way of quality music. The 00's weren't looking so good either. These guys redress that problem. I just listened to "Let's Just Hold Each..." and it really spoke to me. Rklawton 06:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I've only heard two of their samples so I cannot comment on their music much.. but WP:MUSIC is the issue not if they are any good. kotepho 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Samir. Eusebeus 10:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, nn band and per Samir. --Terence Ong 14:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, fails to achieve the level of notability required by WP:MUSIC. Proto||type 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC with a strong push to BJAODN.--Isotope23 17:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per nom and Kotepho. --P199 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Band vanity. Piccadilly 19:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't get this policy. Just because they aren't mainstream doesn't mean they aren't an interesting, different band. I think it's stupid to judge bands by how popular they are. Twodeadsluts keep it real by staying underground. Also, seeing as they are not a large band, information on them is almost nil therefore making this page more useful than ones for bands that people already know tons about and could find on countless websites. Also, "band vanity" is a violation of the amendment of freedom of expression. If people found their name offensive, they would not be interested in listening to them thus having no reason to look up information on them. The Metro 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has cited the coarse name as a reason for deletion, and I'm sure everyone would agree that the band appears to be "interesting and different" in the extreme. Notability is the sole issue here. If you disagree with WP:BAND, that's fine, but don't attack straw men. dbtfz^talk 01:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Oh, and regarding the appeal to the First Amendment, see WP:FREE. I'll shut up now.  :-) dbtfz^talk 01:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone stated "band vanity" as a reason. I must have misinterpreted it. The Metro 20:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another reason I have for this being kept is that while this band doesn't apply to the [WP:Music]] statement, a lot of bands on here don't. Also they have done the following; Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). Said information can be viewed here. The Metro 21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already voted once above. Thanks. -- Samir (the scope) 03:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above. --Khoikhoi 03:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ALL, meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which part? Kotepho 03:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media and tour, and that's without putting much effort in. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with the touring. If you look at their Myspace you can see that they are actually currently touring a large portion of the U.S. They can even be quoted to saying "The band is planning on bringing the live show to both coasts in 2006." Also, they have been mentioned in multiple reputable sources of press as stated above. The Metro 00:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I disagree about notability and don't but the multiple reputable sources of press at all. Barry Zuckerkorn 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources not reputable? They have been reviewed by quite a few places. And they most be notable if they are touring the whole country and all of their old albums are sold out. The Metro 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and Alexa.--Dakota ~ ° 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how they can fail WP:MUSIC seeing as they are currently touring the country. The Metro 1:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge - Liberatore(T) 16:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UI chrome[edit]

Stub not worthy of a separate article. - Sikon 05:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Graphical user interface. I agree, this is not worth a separate article. JIP | Talk 06:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge sounds good to me. --Hetar 09:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above --Arny 13:26, 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 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Cafarelli[edit]

Delete - vanity, reads like a restaurant advertisement. Prod tag removed without explanation. Wickethewok 05:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam. JIP | Talk 06:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:VANITY --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanispamcruftisment, nn. --Terence Ong 15:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Author, 3623, appears to be Cafarelli or someone closely connected to him. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity w/o prejudice to recreation w/o the puffery and upon a showing of notability. Restaurateurs are notable if followed by the press etc. - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 17:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete I am neither Cafarelli nor closely connected to him. I work for a public relations company in Boston and his name came up on our list of industry leaders. There is no need to delete it as the company I work for, or another one in the area, will merely add it again once he is put on the list again. -C623
• Do not Delete In addition, Vanity is not a Wikipedia policy. It is only a guideline and therefore neither a violation nor grounds for deletion. -C623
  • Comment - Lack of notability is. Wickethewok 19:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promo spam. David Hoag 08:15, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rian1.2[edit]

Delete - No assertion of notability. Also, seems to be crystal ballism. Prod tag removed without explanation. Wickethewok 05:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:VANITY, WP:Not a crystal ball and WP:SOFTWARE. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, spam, nn software. --Terence Ong 15:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems not even to be a crystal ball but a hoax. Perhaps an early April's Fools attempt? Large portions of the article are transparently copied (with word replacements) from Multics. Henning Makholm 19:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 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 keep - Liberatore(T) 16:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonga-Hiti[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This is verifiable, as I've added a reference to the bottom. I don't know enough to say whether or not it is notable and bow to others on this question. Bucketsofg 05:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move to 'Tongahiti' . The hyphen is superfluous. Better provenance would also be helpful Kahuroa 07:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:42, 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 - Liberatore(T) 16:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatu[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As far as I can tell, unverifiable. Bucketsofg 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whatu means 'stone' in Māori. To make it mean hail, you have to add the word for rain: ua-whatu (stony rain) or ua-ā-whatu (rain with stones). It makes no sense for the everyday word for stone to be used without these additions and expect anyone to understand it to refer to hail. Whatu is definitely a Māori word, and cannot appear in this form in any other Polynesian language so this cannot be a Polynesian god in the wider sense. Hail is not that common here in NZ, and I would think even rarer still in tropical Polynesia. Apparently hail does occur in Hawaii, but how could they have used a Māori word for it? Kahuroa 06:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 16:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  HUH? How can you "Keep as above" when all the entries above are for "Delete"? Looks like this user is adding Keeps to every AfD, as some form of WP:POINT. Fan1967 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'For great justice' means well but his reasoning is hard to follow. (see my talk page). I take it that he is supporting Grutness' intro above where he says 'keepers...deferring to editors...' and means to indicate that he supports what the 'editors' (ie, me) decide. I think... Kahuroa 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per User:For great justice. - Hahnchen 01:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 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 redirect to Wahieloa. - Liberatore(T) 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wahie Loa[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wahieloa (an important Polynesian mythical figure). Bucketsofg 05:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wahieloa (an important Hawaiian mythical figure - appears under slightly variant names elsewhere in Polynesia). Kahuroa 06:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. --Khoikhoi 03:16, 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 - Liberatore(T) 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vitu[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No entry in Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Probably unnotable; clearly unverified. Bucketsofg 05:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems like a bit of a scrap anyway as well as a slightly odd mix of locations. Kahuroa 06:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Terence Ong 16:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 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 keep - Liberatore(T) 16:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uekera[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No entry in Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Notability unclear; unverified. Bucketsofg 05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I edited to remove the 'Polynesian mythology' category because this is not Polynesian - Kiribati is in Micronesia. An illustration of the reliability of some of these stubs. I now say 'weak keep' because it has references and I am not conversant with Micronesian mythology. Kahuroa 06:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC) edited --Kahuroa 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later comment: Definite Keep - now well sourced by Crypticfirefly below. Kahuroa 06:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'As above' means as the original poster mentioned ("Some of them may be keepers . . . I'm deferring to editors . . . as to which is which") For great justice. 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I also make it clear in my nomination that most of them are not keepers. Voting keep for all of these irrespective of whether they deserve it is a bit strange, to say the least, and positively misleading in many cases. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm gonna go with a Weak Delete for now, unless a better source can be found.--Cúchullain t c 16:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since I'm the one who added the references. (I've added a few better ones as well this evening, after the AfD began.)Crypticfirefly 03:03, 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 delete - Liberatore(T) 16:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tevake[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No entry in Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Notability unclear; unverified. Bucketsofg 05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no provenance here. What part of Polynesia are we dealing with? Tevake could be in one of several Polynesian languages, possibly Rarotongan or Tahitian or several others (not Māori, not Hawaiian, not Samoan). Gannets are temperate birds, the tropical equivalent is the Booby, so that needs to be changed anyway. Kahuroa 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above? No one said keep. Anyway, Delete per Bucketsofg.--Cúchullain t c 16:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:16, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uranga-o-Te-Ra[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added a reference to Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Unless someone can make a good argument against notability, it should probably be kept. Bucketsofg 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given verification by Bucketsofg. My view is that verifiable gods or mythical figures listed in reliable sources are notable. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep tho it must come from a rare version of the story of Māui and so I am not comfortable with it being given the blanket description 'in Māori mythology' as if it were the 'standard' version or something, which it aint. I would like to see a tribal origin traced for this, but in the meantime, fair enough. Kahuroa 06:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later comment: I traced a further reference, Tregear 1891, possibly the ultimate source.Kahuroa 10:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, verifiable. --Terence Ong 16:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:43, 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 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tumuitearetoka[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No entry in Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Notability unclear; unverified. Bucketsofg 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as per Bucketsofg's comment Kahuroa 06:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Bucketsofg. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bucketsofg. --Terence Ong 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, any information on this being would seem to belong in the article on Ngaru. Crypticfirefly 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:21, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tukoio[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There is no entry for this in Cragi's Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology, but his policy is to mention only tales that include gods and goddesses and such. There seems to be an allusion to this figure here. Perhaps someone else can find a reference. Bucketsofg 05:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Will add reference sourced by Bucketsofg and edit article slightly. (PS - found and added another reference also) Kahuroa 06:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verifiable legendary figures are notable in my book. Capitalistroadster 08:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable. --Terence Ong 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:44, 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 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tu-Mea[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No entry in Craig's Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Bucketsofg 05:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as per Bucketsofg.Kahuroa 07:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bucketsofg. --Terence Ong 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 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 redirect to Ngaru (this would be a merge normally, but there's nothing to merge) - Liberatore(T) 17:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tongatea[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Assuming this isn't bad data, I think merging all of these would be in order. Rklawton 05:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with her husband Ngaru (both have entries in Craig's Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology). Bucketsofg 05:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - with Ngaru. Kahuroa 07:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Ngaru or Keep. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Ngaru. --Terence Ong 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 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  (aeropagitica)  17:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dannel Gomiller[edit]

Not very many Google hits for a "cult hit around the world." Chick Bowen 05:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:WEB, and possibly WP:VANITY --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a cult hit around the world. For great justice. 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per TBC. -- P199 17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor webbie thing. Piccadilly 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 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 Speedy delet as nn-bio and contains personal information. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Anant Tayal[edit]

non notable bio of a student, {prod} removed by page author Montco 06:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. --Soumyasch 06:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CSD A7, non notable -- Samir (the scope) 06:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Wickethewok 06:13, 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  (aeropagitica)  17:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of possbile references to music media in the Doom series[edit]

Original Research. One I know is legit. Others seem speculatory at best, without sources. Delete or possibly merge to Making of Doom Drat (Talk) 06:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OR and as listcruft --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "List of possible references..."? That says it all. Delete per WP:NOR. -- Saberwyn 06:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not encyclopedic. --Hetar 09:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Who comes up with this stuff? Delete. Eusebeus 10:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Make it a featured article Delete, obviously. --kingboyk 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research, listcurft, unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Hetar - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• *Please Delete non notable 198.178.8.81 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; WP:NOR, WP:V, could be dealt with in a couple of lines in a related article Aquilina 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the extent it is accurate, with Doom main article or Making of Doom Ande B 06:23, 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 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.John Saw[edit]

Prodded as vanity bio (see WP:BIO). Prod was removed and improperly restored. Moving here as a courtesy to the reprodder. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn-bio Gu 07:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn-bio and vanity. --Terence Ong 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. David Hoag 08:16, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve glove[edit]

Very minor piece of technoloy used by a single group of 1,000 men (the Imperial Fists Space Marine chapter) in the fictional Warhammer 40,000 universe. Information comes from a single novel, and the device does not receive a mention in any other rules, background, or fiction work produced by Games Workshop or its subsidiariy companies. Use is nowhere near widespread enough in the fictional universe to justify (in my mind) a merge to the Weapons and Equipment of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), an is not important enough to the organisation and doctrine of the Imperial Fists chapter to include there.

I have nominated this article once before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerve glove), back in November 05, which resulted in a no consensus keep. -- Saberwyn 06:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Weapons and Equipment of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list is currently a general list showing the equipment available to the entirety of the thousand Chapters of Space Marines, along with a wide variety of Imperial military and paramilitary organisations whose memberships reaches into the billions. To mention an item with such a small use would show great disproportion in the level of information conveyed (ie:fancruft). We can counter it by not having it in there, or we can counter it by listing every single special piece of equipment, squad upgrade, character weapon, relic, and rarely used piece of technology covered in the Armoury section of each Imperial Codex, because stuff with rules should come first in an article on a playable game. We're talking hundreds of seperate entries in the list before we get down to the level of player and universe impact this device has. Do you want a list full of 40k-cruft? I don't. -- Saberwyn 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Warhammer 40,000-related deletions. -- -- Saberwyn 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the nerve glove really is a very, very minor part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. --Pak21 08:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete echoing above. And I would add the Warhammer Universe is itself very, very minor. Eusebeus 10:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For a comparison, try imaging having an article exist about the second sentence of the Chance card where it's your birthday and you get $10 in a game of Monopoly. This is the Warhammer equivalent, and that's how crufty and lame this is. Proto||type 10:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My dog is more notable than this, and I have no dog. Sandstein 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sandstein. A fine turn of phrase may I say :-) — ciphergoth 15:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge IT!!!I like to know every facet of Warhammer...crazymike458@yahoo.com (anonymous user — ciphergoth)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upalindrome[edit]

Delete - a google search for this turns up nothing. NN neologism. Wickethewok 06:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, looks like a protologism -- Samir (the scope) 06:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems retarded. - Baconpatroller 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom.Bjones 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 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 15:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaso Vukotic's Theory[edit]

Not notable. romanm (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, most likely a hoax and vanity. Originally entered by user Sova.kuliana and a 'Vaso Vukotic' is using the email sova.kuliana@gmail.com here. Google hits for this email find a myspace account (now deleted but still viewable from Google's cache) which indicates a 18 year old owner from Nevada. The name Vaso Vukotic doesn't give any physics related Google hits besides this Wiki entry. Gu 08:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax; if not, it's either WP:OR or WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Delete if sources cannot be discovered. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - whatever else this is, it seems to be original research. Smerdis of Tlön 15:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 16:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:24, 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 speedy (?) delete CSD A5

Phaneromania[edit]

Dictionary definition transwiki'd in June 05; unchanged since. Tzaquiel 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Is there even any question about this? It's even written up like a dictionary entry. RGTraynor 19:09, 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 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranobu[edit]

Obvious nonsense - Tzaquiel 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nonsense --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense Gu 07:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:24, 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 split and merge - Liberatore(T) 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Rulings[edit]

This article seems to have an unclear scope or and no particular direction for expansion. It is unclear what an "Islamic Ruling" is – surely the article cannot discuss every decision made by an Islamic court. I suggest that this article be removed, and that the interested contributors focus on more specific, better-defined sub-topics. Twinxor t 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge variously to Sharia (the theft section), Polygamy, Apostasy in Islam, Homosexuality and Islam, and redirect to Fatwa. Gazpacho 11:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per above. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My suggestion is I guess that the artcile can be split into specific artciles. Polygamy in Islam being one. Theft In Islam being another. The ruling on leaving Islam another and then The ruling homosexuality in Islam another. What do you all think? MuslimsofUmreka 11:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful content, per Gazpacho. - Mike Rosoft 13:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the tomato soup man. And MuslimsofUmreka, I don't think we should have an article about "[every word in the dictionary] in Islam". Try contributing to the existing Islam-related articles until they get too large. Sandstein 17:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Who is expected to do the merge? Piccadilly 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, here is what I am gonna do. I am gonna merge the artciles like everyone suggested. Before I do it, can somebody tell me the procedures for doing it, and the best method of doing? By best method I mean, which exact article should certain sections be moved too? I know there are some suggestions to move some sections to shariah and otehrs to fatawa. What does everyone think? MuslimsofUmreka 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has four sections that correspond rather directly to the articles I listed. Gazpacho 23:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Gazpacho. Green Giant 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only the useful stuff. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can somebody else do the merge thing. I'm still kind of new to this site and i'm not sure how exactly I should move the files and if I should change certain content on the other articles to make this one fit. MuslimsofUmreka 00:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only the useful stuff per a.n.o.n.y.m --Khoikhoi 03:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]