< March 21
March 23 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep both consensus and nomination witdrawn. Luke! 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chink[edit]

Chink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is merely a dictionary definition, and at best could be an article about a word, not about a subject, which violates Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Xyzzyplugh 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. John Reaves (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3C (technology term)[edit]

3C (technology term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A quick search of various databases finds no use of the term Confidential Computer Credentials. The writer of the article states that it is an internal term used by his company, PC Perfecters. This is a contested proposed deletion. Spacepotato 23:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwiki to Wiktionary.--Wizardman 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korooyo[edit]

Korooyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's essentially a dictionary entry. Clarityfiend 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as article about club that does not assert its notability. Capitalistroadster 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coburg Amateur Football Club[edit]

Coburg Amateur Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable junior sports club. Mattinbgn/ talk 00:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Martin and Babe Carey[edit]

Jamie Martin and Babe Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A Prod with the following rational was declined. It looks like each of these two soap opera characters Jamie Martin & Babe Carey has their own article already. As well as each actor having an article Justin Bruening & Alexa Havins. Per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction so if the characters should be covered in the article All My Children excepting (If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.) then surely the relationship of the characters is not appropriate as a stand alone article. Jeepday 00:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - and damn you, Action Jackson IV, for making the joke I wanted to make. DS 02:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaga (hypothetical moon)[edit]

Pseudoscience with no reputable backing. No way of expanding article with facts. Pleclech 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Street, San Francisco[edit]

Vermont Street, San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article really stretches the notion of "notability". Why not have an article for every damn street in the city while we're at it? ILike2BeAnonymous 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on comment: It already is mentioned in the Lombard Street article. I'm saying this street doesn't merit its own article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's just the point: it isn't a "famous tourist attraction", not even in the City. Lombard Street is. Seems like some folks have the cart before the horse here, maybe hoping that having a Wikipedia article will somehow catapult this street to the notoriety they think it deserves. It ain't supposed to work that way. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the standard in question is not "fame", but notability. It is already notable, as sources demonstrate. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One (of the two) sources, fodor's, also makes the claim: Everyone in the Western world knows that the "crookedest" street in the world is San Francisco's Lombard Street, which is clearly nonsense. So this leaves us with one reliable source - or is it? fodor's states there are 6 turns, sfgate.com claims 8. If this entry must stay, can someone find some reliable sources? Markb 13:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I pointed out before, the Images of America: San Francisco's Potrero Hill by Linenthal et al is a likely source. In fact, if someone has an Amazon account you can search the text online for Vermont street (I forgot my account info so I can't do this). See [1] RosinDebow 15:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: then add it as a source. Markb 05:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the fact that an article contains the phrase, "Everyone in the Western world knows that the "crookedest" street in the world is San Francisco's Lombard Street", is automatically nonsense. There's no rule that sources can't be written with a moderate amount of humour. -- Black Falcon 05:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep by me. The AfD was prompted by concerns about copyright violation (and the text read like VSCA as well). Wafulz has deleted the copyrighted text. Therefore the reason for nomination is gone. The article that remains is surely keepable in its own right. - Richard Cavell 03:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man Family[edit]

Spider-Man Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

someone added this artcle for deletion, but didn't list it here. Gman124 02:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Gallagher[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO for notability and violates WP:SOAP for self-promotion of his book. Gallagher surname page is the only other article that links to this one. Google search does not support notability. --Roswell native 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Concerns regarding sourcing were not addressed. If the amount of storyline material, after taking attribution and WP:WAF into consideration, proves too large for those articles, creation of a separate 'storyline' article may be warranted, but I don't see any consensus that the sub-articles are called for at this time. Shimeru 07:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft storyline[edit]

StarCraft storyline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This series of article presents an extreme amount of undue weight to Starcraft. They basically outline the story of Starcraft on a level-by-level, mission-by-mission scope, which is wholly unnecessary. Plot summaries must be succinct and kept as small as possible to provide major relevant details- not to detail every piece of a campaign. I believe the main articles Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War do a fine job as is summarizing the storyline- per WP:NOT #7, we should not simply be regurgitating plot summaries of a popular video game. While I usually hate bundling deletions, I feel these are all necessary:

comment - to me, Goobergunch, what you just said is a good reason to keep the page. I've also come to AfD because I originally saw an article I considered important that was tagged for deletion (well, already deleted, actually). Unfortunately, m:Wiki is not paper doesn't seem to have any success as an anti-deletion argument anymore. Anyway, what's your opinion that this sort of article should instead be at a StarCraft Wikia, as proposed above? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles aren't plot summaries. Plot summaries can already be found in the respective StarCraft articles. These chapter summaries almost transcribe the exact events of one game and its expansion, as well as a bonus campaign. They are so in-depth that they border on copyright infringement. --Scottie_theNerd 14:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. --Wafulz 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cache Cache[edit]

Cache Cache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a band from Baltimore, MD that was started last year. The article's only contributor is User:Championonion; it was nominated for an A7 speedy by Real96 but that nom was contested by Championonion. Article is currently unreferenced and does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. A Train take the 02:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete--Isotope23 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl harvin[edit]

Earl harvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is poorly formatted, unsourced, and does not provide any reliable sources to back up it's few claims to notability. It is also unclear whether this article is about the band or the person. Would speedy, but its claim to tour with other bands made me decide to just list it here. --YbborT 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad The Cripple[edit]

Non-notable person on non-notable radio show Mhking 02:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ER (TV series) broadcasters[edit]

ER (TV series) broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep; unambiguous consensus for keep, no deletion rationale given by nominator. (|-- UlTiMuS 19:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debian Free Software Guidelines[edit]

Debian Free Software Guidelines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia isn't the Debian project site, this doesn't belong here. Evergreens78 03:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So ? We also keep the articles about Debian, GNU, GPL, ... Let's keep this also --Garo 08:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Lang, Jr.[edit]

Jeffrey Lang, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical and notability concerns. Diletante 03:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I know, I'm closing and I'm the nominator. This debate has already attracted more attention than it needed, let's move on to more productive things. Mangojuicetalk 18:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Haines[edit]

Becca Haines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Local-level actress, with no sources attesting to any further notability. Contested PROD. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. --Coredesat 07:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRIM[edit]

GRIM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted, sources are suspect. Reads like a "biography" for the band by one of its the members. Tito Pao 03:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Smith (musician)[edit]

Corey Smith (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notabiity per WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Notability (music). Roswell native 03:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. Slowking Man 13:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jhune Hermano[edit]

Jhune Hermano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This certainly reads like an autobiogarphy, as the information is more or less the same as that found on the external website. Notability not asserted. Tito Pao 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renetto (3rd nomination)[edit]

Renetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

YouTube personality. Deletion review couldn't decide whether new sources are sufficient to overrule the prior AfD's (1, 2), so the caravan moves here. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDILY DELETED. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Dad vs. Family Guy[edit]

American Dad vs. Family Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible web vanity that fails WP:WEB, not very notable, and has been deleted twice before.[4] --AAA! (AAAA) 03:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbors (band)[edit]

Neighbors (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, sources missing. Probably just one of those small bands that a group of friends or classmates formed. Tito Pao 03:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Ambassadors[edit]

Singing Ambassadors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability established, reads like a self-promoting profile. And increasingly, many choirs from the Philippines are touring as well, so I'm not clear what makes this one stand out from the other choirs (e.g. has it participated in national or international competitions? did it participate in choral festivals and notable workshops?) Tito Pao 03:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete based on consensus of established users. --Coredesat 02:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Christian Webster (2nd nomination)[edit]

Jonathan Christian Webster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Extensive, and I mean exteeeeeensive, bio for a frequent caller to a radio talk show named Coast to Coast AM. Every call is logged in detail with audioclip, his viewpoints are discussed, but nothing in terms of secondary sources. The first AfD ended in Keep based on blatant meatpuppeteering, so we might get more of it here. ~ trialsanderrors 04:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I believe it is considered bad form to insert a later comment into earlier discussion to make it appear at the top of the discussion section. It perhaps could be considered bad faith action because you are attempting to attract undue attention to your arguments in an artificial manner. It is difficult to take anonymous, first-time, 1-issue posters seriously when the appear to flaunt form and good manners to promote their opinion. Scienter 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted that the contributions of this editor, 63.215.29.98, have been confined to vandalism, aside from the commentary above. Scienter 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you've done a great deal of work on the page. However, you need to argue for it based on Wikipedia policy, not how much effort has gone into it. I suspect that the primary critera that need to be met is WP:N and WP:BIO. Even if the page gets kept, however, it looks like it needs to be pruned back quite a bit.Chunky Rice 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's important that this fellow have his own webpage, great, I'm sure Myspace can accommodate him. Wikipedia is not a web host. RGTraynor 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Deepspire: Please keep in mind that many of the Wikipedia participants discussing this AfD are aware of the sock-puppeting that went on during the 1st AfD discussion of this article. Anonymous, first-time, 1-issue posters strongly advocating a blatantly non-encyclopedic article tend to seem suspicious. If you wish to support this article, please add new sources that support the notion that the article's subject is notable. Scienter 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Scienter: I did miss the last AfD, and from what was described, I'm glad I did. I don't think this debate should be whether or not J.C, is "notable" enough. I don't want to get into that kind of debate because that will beg every imbicile with a pulse to come in here and clutter our serious discussion with nonsense "votes," peppered with insults. So far this discussion has had some intelligent thought, and I hope not to become flamed by others, but I have reverted my position somewhat. J.C. is not notable enough for an article of such magnitude. However, the sheer number of times J.C. is mentioned on Coast to Coast does merit a mention just to give people a quick idea of "who this J.C. is." I have posted a radically shortened page that I think better demonstrates what I mean. I've stripped it down about as bare minimum as I feel is appropriate. Unfortunately, neither extreme "side" here will probably be happy. Deepspire 11:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Deepspire: While I think your edits are definitely a step in the right direction in some sense, I respectfully disagree with your opinion that this discussion should not be about whether Jonathan Christian Webster is notable or not. It is my opinion that this discussion should very much center on whether the subject of this article is notable, and thus appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, while your edits to the article's length are beneficial, the few sources listed within the article remain very worrisome. The first link is the website of the radio station that J.C. Webster apparently calls. The second link is a AOL home page with an extensive log of the calls made by J.C. Webster to the aforementioned radio station, which may be the source of this article's now-removed girth. The third link is for the "official" forum of the aforementioned radio station. I would posit that none of these links help to establish that J.C. Webster, nor his calls, nor his organization passes WP:N. What this article needs in order to be viable is some other outside sources that can cited to build a case that this person, J.C. Webster, is indeed notable. A great example would be some newspaper articles or some links to a local news broadcast discussing the individual. Of course, these types of traditional media are be no means the only way to demonstrate notability, but they sure are more convincing than a phone log.
My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that any article, be it a stub or a featured article must pass WP:N or it should be removed. If an article is nominated for deletion based on a legitimate reason (such as the subject of the article failing WP:N) then it must either be improved by editors or be deleted. I fully understand that WP:N does not equal "famous," meaning one may be notable for the purposes of Wikipedia without being a "famous person." However, even in that light, neither J.C. Webster nor his calling deserve a Wikipedia treatment. Scienter 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Scienter: Yes. I was just reading the WP:N. I've put some thought into this. Thank you. Deepspire 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the issue really being discussed was whether or not this individual is notable. Your comment carries the implication that because you feel J.C. Webster is notable, he must be so. The problem with this line of reasoning is that none of this individual's actions are verifiable via outside sources. I don't have a grudge against the fellow, but I've been doing some digging in my free time and I can't find anything about him. The (very helpful & courteous) comments of Deepspire are evidence to me that some people are familiar with the subject of this article. But is there an argument in favor of keeping this article that is objectively strong? No disrespect intended, but you state that you strongly feel the article should be kept without giving a reason why that should be the case. It would be very helpful if you could explain your position and how it conforms to Wikipedia's content policies. Thank you, Scienter 02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Academic Challenger: I think you confused definitions like I did. There are two definitions of "notable." One being fame, i.e. "A notable caller." The "notable" we are refering to here means the ability to cite in a notation. Scienter was kind enough to point me in the right direction: WP:N. For a subject to be "notable," it must be attributable to "notable source." Just the "truth" that he's called and said things doesn't make it notable. And ironically, something entirely false can be notable. For example, the article stub I've trimmed down is "basic information," and while it all may be true, just my saying so doesn't make it notable. However, if I were also a reporter and wrote a piece for The Sacramento Post, or somewhere "notable" like that, saying exactly the same things, then those words have then become attributable to a "notable source," even if my information was wrong. So understandably, establishing notability is very important not only for terms of credibility, but also for legal reasons. That would be the only reason the John Titor article has a place here. Notable sources have written about him. Otherwise, the "truth" boils down to that he was just an anonymous person who wrote a few posts claiming to be a time-traveler. That is what we have here at this point. J.C. is simply an anonymous caller into Coast to Coast AM, and until any "notable" things are said or written about him, or are found from archives somewhere, that is exactly what J.C. will remain. No one is trying to pretend that "J.C." doesn't exist, or hasn't made an impact of sorts on Coast to Coast AM. The Coast to Coast AM page here does make a mention of him, which for now is all that is appropriate. Regards, Deepspire 12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=To Scienter, I apologize for not responding earlier, I'm pretty busy this week. I personally believe that the fact that he called into a radio show that is widely listened to, making such controversial claims, makes him notable enough for Wikipedia, even though he has not been written about by outside sources. I understand that my position is not popular at this point, and I understand that the article is likely to be deleted. Academic Challenger 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armando M. Fernandez[edit]

Armando M. Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable auto-bio. Should probably also delete the five REDIRECTs to this page, all by the same User:Moisesxyz, a probable sock-puppet relationship with uncooperative and abusive User:69.108.119.249, User:69.227.189.1, User:71.246.37.169, and others. Dicklyon 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. The article is too POV to be good and to not vote for a speedy delete. --- Tito Pao 04:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. And I could not make any sense of this article. --AAA! (AAAA) 05:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Armando M. Fernandez ought to not be removed from Wikipedia just because Dick lyon hates Fernandez's invention, the mousepad, and has taken an anti-mousepad stand.

Mr. Armando M. Fernandez Invented, named and documented the mousepad. The mousepad has gone various times around the world in various generations of designs. The mousepad has been instrumental in exposing the problems of the mouse since 1979, DATE OF PUBLISHING, the days of the roller ball computer mouse. Later, when the optical mouse showed up, the mousepad helped expose the problems of the optical mouse so manufacturers had so do something to fix those problems. Mr. Dick Lyon, who seems to be an optical mouse designer, does not like the mousepad. As a matter of fact, he has taken an Anti-mousepad stand to such extent that he damages, removes and deletes entries which are helpful to the general public about the mousepad. He has also taken to give credit for the invention of the mousepad to the wrong people and seeking to deny, erase and delete any entry which supports Armando M. Fernandez as the original person who invented, named and documented the mousepad. He seeks to destroy the mousepad and its usefulness to society to such extent that he is passionatly Wikipedia-stalking Mr. Fernandez. Someone in Wikipedia administration ought to dis-empower Mr. Lyon from the organization so he stops his Wikipedia tyrant-bully and Wikipedia stalking activities. For sure, Mr. Fernandez is not the only person on whom he, Lyon, performs his Wikipedia stalking activities and the mousepad is not the only object which he, Lyon, seeks to destroy, inhibit and demean its value and contribution to the improvement and betterment of the human condition in the world.

Mr. Armando M. Fernandez is surely a very notable person and due notariety as he has contributed extensively to the reduction of mental, eye, wrist, hand and finger stress in the use of computers through his invention of the mousepad. Mr. Armando M. Fernandez has helped make the use of computer apparatus using a display pointer much more comfortable to work with, to study with, to learn with and to surf the internet with. The mousepad invented named and documented by Mr. Armando M. Fernandez has done great good to the whole world and continues to do great good as it keeps challenging computer mouse designers to comeup with better mouse designs. Apparently Mr. Dick Lyon as an optical mouse designer is very upset at such great contributions which have been made to the world by Mr. Armando M. Fernandez through having invented, named and documented the mousepad.

Mr. Armando M. Fernadez is surely a very notable person to whom credit should be given for his invention of the mousepad. He ought to not be stalked by Mr. Lyon through misuse and abuse of Lyon's power within the Wikipedia organization. Lyon ought to be stripped of his power by his supervisors so he would be no more than a common contributor. He misuses and abuses his power, in Wikipedia stalking Mr. Fernandez, and Wikipedia tyrant-bully activities. Lyon's attitude, misuse and abuse of administrative power is NOT contributing to improving and expanding Wikipedia usefulness, it is rather destroying it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.119.249 (talk • contribs).— 69.108.119.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am already no more than an ordinary contributor. Just trying to follow wikipedia policy. I don't have any different atttitude or power in this case than in the many others I have contributed to. And I do enjoy having and using mousepads, thanks. Armando, I recommend you leave these articles alone for a while, as they are too close to your personal interests; try learning to become a normal contributing editor of wikipedia, and then maybe come back and look at your baby and see how it is doing. Dicklyon 14:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnimeIowa[edit]

AnimeIowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although an editor claims notability, I can find no evidence of this, other than the fact that the event actually does happen. Nearly all "references" provided are first-party information, press releases, or blogs. Google search on name brings back only 294 unique of about 389 external hits, nearly all blogs, directories, or simple listings. No legitimate news mentions found - LexisNexis search also returns zero news stories from entire archive. Based on the lack of reliable sources, coupled with the fact that large sections read like an advertisement, I cannot agree that the convention is notable enough for inclusion, and recommend Delete. MikeWazowski 04:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Nom in Bad Faith Speedy Keep Even though I hate to do it, I have to accuse you of bad faith here... Perhaps because of the other two AfDs we've participated in. The Children of The Con article, and the several Fan's View articles are more than enough to establish notability. Kopf1988 04:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your accusations of bad faith to yourself, as they are unfounded. The "Children of the Con" and "Fan's View" articles are essentially blog entries, which according to Wikipedia standards, are not reliable sources, as you can read here. You disagree with my reasons, I get that - I suggest you read WP:ILIKEIT#I_like_it, as I believe this most definitely applies in your case. MikeWazowski 04:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can not equate those FansView to a blog. The editor has reviewed dozens of Anime Conventions, and is a pretty reliable source. Moreover, have you ever read, Arguments to avoid in a deleltion discussion... I think you have. Maybe they weren't in bad faith... but I cant say much else without getting into personal attacks which I will not do any further. Kopf1988 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I also consulted LexisNexis, which catalogs newpapers, journals, magazines, and even some TV news broadcasts from all over the globe. The absolute lack of returns there speaks of a serious lack of mainstream press reporting on the event, which led to my conclusion that there was a lack of reliable sources. MikeWazowski 07:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone keep the personal attacks out of this -- especially folks who have been warned on this before, per their own discussion pages. Ad hominem has no place here in Wikipedia. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, some citations would help - just saying it's so doesn't cut the mustard. I've found references to the con on the *forums* at Animerica, and references to *listings* of con reports in Protoculture Addicts - this, however, does not actually confer notability on the convention, it just verifies that it happened. Were the con reports written by journalists or were they fan submissions? There is a difference here, one very important to the future of this article. If the "features" you mention are not online, do you have access to the magazine to offer a scan for review? MikeWazowski 04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a whole bunch of people talking about it, plus the addition of other sources only bolster its claim of being worthy of being noted? It might not, but regardless there are enough sources in this article Mike. Kopf1988 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protoculture Addicts, Animerica, and (I'm 99% sure) Newtype USA had actual articles written in their print editions (available "at fine newsstands everywhere") about the convention that were written by regular staff writers (not fans). I've seen them, but unfortunately I do not have the issues myself so I am unable to provide the sources or scan them. However, if someone could dig those up, it would be great. --PatrickD 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only forums and such types of articles are to verify information and give attribution to some of the statements. These statements are hardly controversial anyway, and don't even need those refs. You MAY be able to equate one or two of the sources to blogs, but [Fans View] is considered a reliable and attributable source in this area. The Anime News Network article is a NEWS ARTICLE about the convention. See Talk:AnimeIowa for even MORE sources. Kopf1988 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Zedco, what's your native language?? Also have you noticed that the article is underconstruction? Meaning that it is in the process of being better written. We/I have been working to make it an extremely great article. Kopf1988 19:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • what? whats my native lanuage got to do with it? anyawys article gets deleted, you go away and complete it properly, then come bak and put it up properly like you should have done in the first place.--Zedco 09:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I don't want to incorrectly interpret your spelling/grammar. As for your argument, not all encyclopedia entries start out perfect. Wikipedia grows because of that. One person makes an article with just one viewpoint. Someone else adds a second viewpoint. Third person cleans it up, fixing simple mistakes. Fourth person makes sure all details and viewpoints are covered, and suddenly we have a good encyclopedia entry. Kopf1988 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe just a tiny bit, lol. Kopf1988 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Hu12 08:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Russian diplomats in Iraq[edit]

Attack on Russian diplomats in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think this is notable eough to warrant an article. It happened eight months ago, and there are no other articles linking to it. If it were notable and important, some other article would link to it. Sable232 04:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: S (Society topics) ◄Zahakiel► 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Southwest High School[edit]

Green Bay Southwest High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Basically a sandbox of childish vandalism since article creation, does not assert notability Splintercellguy 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was get rid of this now (but not speedily). --Coredesat 02:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Santos Friends Online[edit]

Erik Santos Friends Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This certainly reads like a promotional material for the group's web site. Notability not asserted. Tito Pao 04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Any merge proposals should be discussed using the appropriate templates. WjBscribe 03:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong-style Western cuisine[edit]

Hong Kong-style Western cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am on the verge of rewriting the main Cuisine of Hong Kong page in a new expandable format. This page should be merged or deleted, when the other page is ready. The notion of having a Hong Kong style western cuisine that link to American Chinese food is not the best way to present the material. Benjwong 03:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was list not listed correctly and I am merely properly listing it. I am not the nominator. Luke! 05:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just wait till I make my changes to Cuisine of Hong Kong and you can tell me how this will plug in. Give me a little time. Benjwong 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there really a hurry to delete this article? And how about expanding it instead? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you probably should have waited until you finished that article before bringing this to AfD. I don't see any valid reason not to Keep this one right now.Chunky Rice 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prajjwal Rai Tyagi[edit]

Prajjwal Rai Tyagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unfortunately there's an assertion here. Non notable writer. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating this page was just an attempt to let the people know my attempts for the under previllaged. I want more and more people to participate in rural youth education program that I run. I understand that it wasn't mentioned but the qualification and experience mentioned here was just so that people get attracted and get associated with me. Please accept my apologies as I now I know that the approach wasn't right, and I almost uploaded my resume here. However, I have changed it now. I would request you to please revisit and check and let me know what I can change. All the other things mentioned here are the things which I have been doing either as hobby or to earn money. so that I can support myself and the program. My apologies agaian, but my intentions were never "self promo and just aint notable. do we need to know is hight?"

Comment Above is an admission that this is an article written by the subject and therefore COI. There are almost 30 edits by Prajjwal Rai Tyagi since nomination which do not make it any better (in fact, probably worse). Emeraude 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, you may remove it. Thank you for letting it being there all this while.

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

The result was delete - it's no Wintereenmas. DS 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallowistmas[edit]

WP:NEO, notability dubious at best. I've heard the word bandied about on a few talk radio shows, but I really don't think it can be more than a DictDef and a brief discourse on seasonal shopping trends. Maybe a merge somewhere? Action Jackson IV 06:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotlines[edit]

Hotlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no assertions of notability, references, etc. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.. Kopf1988 06:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still Delete all TV shows will be listed on TV Guide, the second link you provided barely mentions the show, the third link describes that it is in HD (but does little to establish notability), and the others are just directory entries. I'd be happy to change my opinion if you can find sources to establish the notability of this show. Kopf1988 19:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Hu12 08:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soda Pictures[edit]

Soda Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable company and as such is a violation of WP:CORP RockerballAustralia 07:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--cj | talk 01:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian anti communist organization[edit]

Australian anti communist organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Suspected hoax. The article is very light on details and the references do not support the article content. Mattinbgn/ talk 08:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --bainer (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Fairlie-Clarke[edit]

Allan Fairlie-Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. Allanfc is the creator of the somewhat notable browser game Battrick, a spinoff from the notable game Hattrick. I don't think this is sufficiently notable, and the links in the article do not seem to demonstrate widespread interest. The media interest claim surrounding selling his house to follow a cricket tour is not notable. I appreciate I could get some stick on this, as Allanfc is popular among Battrickers. MLA 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As a side note Zedco has been editing Wikipedia for 4 days, in that time he has edited about 50 AfD's and voted delete on every single one his opinioned is already biased and made up, surely WP:POINT has to apply here? -- JRA WestyQld2 09:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a decent suggestion. I've been caballing it with JRA and it seems to me that this is a reasonable compromise. MLA 06:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here here --JRA WestyQld2 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect sounds great. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. This is a very strange case, as most of the non-anonymous comments have remarked during the discussion. Other AfDs are frequently closed "with no prejudice against recreating a valid article", and in this case I'll take the opposite view. If there's actually something wrong with this article, there's no prejudice against nominating it in a non-disruptive manner. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia Applications Development Environment[edit]

Multimedia Applications Development Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article should be deleted for two reasons: 1. It is not notable. 2. It has not had any edits in 2006. I noticed a mistake in the article, and fixed it, without even checking the last time it was edited. Please delete the article, then re-create it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc iindyysgvxc (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 was Speedily Deleted by Mel Etitis.--Xnuala (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bioni Samp[edit]

Bioni Samp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable DJ with borderline advert article StuartDouglas 10:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Missed that email address at the end - thanks. StuartDouglas 11:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Melodic Electro Death Metal[edit]

Modern Melodic Electro Death Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable term, and no sources that would verify even the existence of such musical genre. 54 Google hits (11 unique); all the hits point to Russian websites and the article seems a bit like an advertisement for a non-notable Russian band. Contested prod. Prolog 10:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and Delete. Already merged; no need to worry about GFDL issues, as this subpage was pulled from the main article. utcursch | talk 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E. Converse Peirce 2nd/Publications[edit]

E. Converse Peirce 2nd/Publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a long list of works for a doctor E. Converse Peirce 2nd. I do not think there is a need to excessly emphasise his contributions by having such a long list of his work in a separate article. There are lots of scientists who write as many published papers as listed here, so this list is not special in itself. Resurgent insurgent 10:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the above puzzling statements on the article talk page. I will comment further as appropriate.
  1. Move this page to Edmund Converse Peirce (currently non-existing).
  2. Delete this page as being an unnecessary subpage and having a trivial edit history.
  3. Merge Edmund Converse Peirce into E. Converse Peirce 2nd and turn the former into a redirect tagged with ((R from merge)).
That serves the three purposes of: (1) deleting this article, (2) conducting a partial merge, and (3) preserving the edit history as required per GFDL. -- Black Falcon 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant edit history--it is just that the info was copied into this out of the main page. But i doubt the mechanics are important. DGG 02:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Music Scale[edit]

Global Music Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. I'm unable to find any references whatsoever for this upcoming music chart. As such, it appears non-notable, judging in particular from the fact that the article's written in the future tense. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No of course you wouldnt have found any references on the upcoming music scale because they are under construction. You said it yourself that the article is in futur tense so there wouldnt be any would there? give it time and it will grow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by simoncp (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 was Delete. The articles' creator may, if he wishes, create the pages in his own userspace and check them with any user willing to provide that help before moving them (or having them moved) into articlespace. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engine group[edit]

Engine group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability; creator removed prod without comment.

I am including the related article Peter Scott - Engine Group in this AfD. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scott - Engine Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robin Wight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. --Wafulz 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Live WiFi Center[edit]

Windows Live WiFi Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I propose this page for deletion. Shortly after announcing the rebranding of the wifi suite to MSN development of the WiFi Center was dropped, see: [9] [10] I don't see the point in keeping the article as a "WiFi Center was an application..." page, it was such a little known prgram anyway. A Cornish Pasty 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to violation of copyright, content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, and content not attributable to a reliable source, especially if the content is negative in tone.

Not because a project was canceled.68.202.17.86 00:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)GR[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to incendiary device. --Coredesat 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incendiary Bombs[edit]

Incendiary Bombs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article fails the inclusion criterias ofWP:MUSIC and is self-promotion. The only contributor has a history of vanity articles and link spamming. Delete Pax:Vobiscum 12:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowhead[edit]

Wowhead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:WEB. Doesn't have any references to notability and has little information in the article. SimonRK 12:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Guinnog. --Coredesat 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The battle never ends[edit]

The battle never ends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm a Wikipedia inclusionist, but this goes too far. No discernible interest to anyone but the creator and should not be listed on the One (Metallica song) page. JNighthawk 13:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. I checked Google for sources, and while Ridis gets a bunch of google hits, none of them appear to have any relationship to this company. Deleted for being unattributable and not satisfying WP:CORP. Mo0[talk] 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridis[edit]

Ridis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested proposed deletion. I support delete, because the material is not attributable. Sancho (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominator withdrew his nomination. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John B[edit]

John B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:MUSIC. The article fails to assert his notability, and a quick Google test supported this lack of notability (first hit is his own website, second is some obscure fansite, third is Wikipedia). He doesn't seem to be on any charts or meet any of the other criteria at WP:MUSIC. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating Beta Recordings, his record label. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
+1 202.37.75.101 06:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources.
    It's pretty clear from his MySpace page that he regularly tours Western and Eastern Europe and North America. Videos on his site and podcast have shown him being interviewed on TV and radio in a number of countries. He regularly attends the Winter Music Conference.
  • It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
    John was on the cover of Knowledge Magazine issue 59 and interviewed on Grooverider's BBC One radio show on 26 August 2006 (he also played a guest DJ set on that show).
  • Key word: non-trivial. Plus, being on the cover of the magazine hardly qualifies as being the subject of the work, and you need to provide evidence for the BBC One claim. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
    I doubt there are many drum'n bass albums that have achieved gold status in any territory (Concord Dawn and Shapeshifter are noteable exceptions, but only in the New Zealand market). Most of his five albums have been released on his own label, Beta Recordings (whose roster also includes Exile), but he has released singles on a variety of high profile labels such as Metalheadz, Prototype Recordings, Formation Records and Defunked. Additionally he has remixed artists such as Omni Trio and Blame.
  • None of these are major record labels or particularly important indie labels, and as you said, he released most of his albums on his own label. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style.
    This is where it is possible to disagree over notability, but he has been promoting his own subgenres such as Electrostep and Trance'n Bass in recent years. He has produced tracks across the full spectrum of drum'n bass including Jungle, Techstep and Liquid Funk tracks. Rolldabeats provides a fairly comprehesive discography —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.37.75.101 (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Sub-subgenres are not notable styles. Drum and bass is a subgenre of electronic music, and those you listed are just obscure sub-subgenres. Plus, he's not even listed as a notable artist on their Wikipedia articles. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Anyone with even remote interest in drum 'n' bass knows who John B is. He's been reviewed and interviewed multiple times on Mixmag, DJ Magazine and Knowledge Magazine, as well as nominated for DMA award (http://www.btyahoo.com/dma06/best_electronic-dj_artist) . Here's an example piece from Knowledge: http://www.knowledgemag.co.uk/features.asp?SectionID=1031&uid=&MagID=1063&ReviewID=1702&PageNumber=1 .
BTW, "Electronic Music" is not a genre, Drum 'n' Bass is a genre, and electrostep and liquid funk are drum 'n' bass subgenres. --Telecart 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of more interviews:
Groove Effect: http://www.grooveeffect.com/feature-articles-guides/grooveeffect-interviews-dj-producer-john-b.php
Jive Magazine: http://www.jivemagazine.com/article.php?pid=2106
Alright, your evidence is convincing enough, Telecart. Would you agree with redirecting his label to his article, though? The label doesn't contain any useful information and isn't notable for anything other than his own material. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Jones (singer)[edit]

Buck_Jones_(singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Why was this listed for deletion?Fuzzywolfenburger 13:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: B (Biographical) ◄Zahakiel► 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - you say "generally, the poor quality of an article or its stubbiness is not a good reason to delete" - I agree, but that doesn't stop 3-day-old stubs or reworkable articles from being deleted. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I have fixed the cut-and-paste move and redirected Buddha Film to Buddha (2007 film). WjBscribe 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha Film[edit]

Buddha_Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article has been merged, by me into the article, Buddha (film), so it is irrelavent.

Meissmart 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: M (Media and music) ◄Zahakiel► 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the page Buddha Film which is a project that is entirely different from the other film Buddha (film). So a merge into the latter article is not appropriate. You have mentioned that you have merged the article to the former, which actually has not and does not require a merge too. Hence the deletion instruction is to be removed. I hope you have understood. Thanks.Yugeshp 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to understand how Ian Meissmart says that both the articles are about the new Buddha film, in essence they are, but please be informed there are several films named 'Buddha' and the ones in discussion are separate projects. Pls. read the article before you place deletion instructions. The one I created Buddha Film is written by D.K.Goel and is being directed by Sreedhar Allani and is scheduled for release during 2007, where the other one Buddha (film) is by Thich Nhat Hanh (book) and written by David S. Ward and is scheduled for release in 2008. The view of other Wikipedians is the same as mine, which means the articles are not be merged as they talk about different projects, though the title of the film is the same. I am ending the discusssion here. You may go ahead with the deletion of the article if you wish. I am creating a new article Buddha (2007 film) as recommended by the user Tikiwont. I hope you will be more prudent while placing deletion instructions and will take a little more care by reading the articles in detail before taking such a step. Yugeshp 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to simply move it. We can then redrect this discusion as well. --Tikiwont 14:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didnt know i could move it, as I already created the new article, am unable to move the same now. Yugeshp 07:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Meissmart, please be more careful in the future. If you aren't sufficiently interested in the article to read and notice all the names are different, then you aren't sufficiently interested to merge/delete/rename. I got here when I noticed the dueling hatnotes on the Buddha page. I soon found that Buddha (2007 film) was not listed at Buddha (disambiguation). I started fixing that, so I verified that the movies are different, and then I stumbled on a third page (Buddha Film). One sure thing I have learned editing Wikipedia: When something doesn't make sense, step back and try to make sense of it. It usually still doesn't make sense, but the experience is useful. — Randall Bart 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the views — Randall Bart. Now that the new article Buddha (2007 film) is in place, Buddha Film the old one needs to be deleted. How do I do it? Yugeshp 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Goody[edit]

Jade_Goody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Jade Goody

Comment:MLA and Mhking are totally wrong im not doing this to be mean im doing this because Jade actually isnt notable at all. What has she done? except not winning big brother?--Matrix17 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a serious question but assuming good faith that it is, this is a highly notable person in the UK who has received numerous and ongoing media coverage, has been the endorsement face of a series of ventures, is a millionaire as a result of her celebrity exposure, and was the center of an international scandal. MLA 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: MLA always use Comment: before you write here. and for the other matter i dnt now what the fuss is about i dont think this person is notable. I dont think so, YOU dont have to think so. and if you dont believe it will be deleted well then just let it have its course and you donthave to worry.i actually believes it should be deleted. so what.--Matrix17 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)


Comment:as i have sayed im not doing it to be mean or in bad faith, couldnt it just be that the articles i hav enominated really isnt notable??haha--Matrix17 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Harris (basketball)[edit]

Paul Harris (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

delete - does not assert notability, does not meet standard for WP:BIO ZBrannigan 22:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards (bad structure and grammar). Perhaps if more care was shown in writing the article, it would be more apparent to me why this person is notable. Overall, however, I'd recommend that current living non-professional athletes not be notable enough to allow a bio here. Troymaclure 23:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pusites[edit]

Pusites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable slang term. Sfacets 13:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: S (Society topics) ◄Zahakiel► 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi Prasad[edit]

Rishi_Prasad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article is about a publication which is non-notable outside the context of Sant Sri Asaramji Bapu. Sfacets 13:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: M (Media and music) ◄Zahakiel► 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I have been slow in providing my inputs to the article but the article is very important to introduce and define a very large publication in India. The magazine is available in many different languages including English and has subscribers all over the world. I would like to have some more time to improve the article.... Thanks Rohit 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Yog Vedanta Seva Samiti[edit]

Sri_Yog_Vedanta_Seva_Samiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article is about an organisation which is non-notable outside the context of Sant Sri Asaramji Bapu. Sfacets 13:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: O (Org., corp., or product) ◄Zahakiel► 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boîte Diabolique[edit]

Boîte Diabolique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is about a brief one-off joke from a single episode of a television program. No independent sources are provided, and none are likely to exist. —Psychonaut 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Completely unattributable, only has itself as a source, and no claim to notability. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fury Within (MOD of Diablo II)[edit]

The Fury Within (MOD of Diablo II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable mod, fails to assert notability or provide reliable third-party sources. Procedural afd due to contested speedy. The Kinslayer 14:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a famous mod[citation needed] date back to 2001-2002. And the newer version of it began to be developed from 2006 till now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Horans (talk • contribs) — Horans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As the articles creator, your choice isn't surprising. What is surprising is that a mod thats been around since 2001 has only it's readme as a source, and only it's website, forum and fansite as references. The Kinslayer 14:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


contents need to be added. please don't judge it too soon. if you need prove of nobility, goole with the name and "diablo" Horans 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of evidence is on you to show us the reliable sources, and not on us to find them. The Kinslayer 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Clearcut case of WP:CRYSTAL. Mo0[talk] 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Family Vacation 2[edit]

Johnson Family Vacation 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article refers to a report made in the Hollywood Reporter eighteen months ago (October 2005). There has been no news since, and it would appear that the film never entered production. Unless anybody can prove otherwise this article should be deleted as unverifiable. Rje 14:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Consensus was either to merge or delete, and since the merge has already been performed, the article is of no use. Mo0[talk] 01:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice (2007 film)[edit]

Alice (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article on a film that has been talked about for 7 years with no sign of going into production - there has been no news in almost two years now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: unless this film actually gets made, which does not look likely at this stage, it should not have an article. Rje 15:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very often, the content of articles of films that never get made is underwhelming. If this film never gets made, then there would be stagnant growth of content in its article. If no content will ever be added, then it's best to merge it to the source material. Try a more authoritative Google search, since Google hits will obviously spur discussion about the film on blogs and message boards. A Google News Archive Search only records 27 actual hits, under the assumption that a proper headline would note that the film is based on American McGee's Alice. Additionally, IMDb is not a reliable source at all in terms of pre-release news. Even if you're citing it, you should notice that the film's status at IMDb is marked as "Unknown". Also, the listing at New York Times does not actually mention anything about the film's production. For all we know, it was added in 2005 and hasn't been removed since; there's no date attached to its inclusion to indicate its recency. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compete, Inc[edit]

Compete, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claim to notability (except blogs), blatant advertising, written pretty much by SPA. Prod deleted by article writer without comment. Qualifies for speedy but thought I'd see if anyone could turn up anything of value on them BozMo talk 09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE. Neither numbers nor argument provide a slam-dunk for any one solution. Flat-out Delete is, I think, out of the question as overly destructive for an outcome endorsed by only about 1/3 of commentors. That leaves Keep or Merge. Which? This is a toughie, but my reading of it is that the Merge arguments have the upper hand. No information will be destroyed so I think this is OK. Because of the length of the articles, I will merge them into separate articles for each season. There is much too much material to merge the whole shebang into the main article. Herostratus 14:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life Inside A Console[edit]

Life Inside A Console (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We don't need individual episode articles for a DVD exclusive series. We are not an advertising/fan site for the show. Drat (Talk) 12:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for the same reason:

I Feel Asleep (Mega64) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Gangs Returned To Class And Became Honor Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eyes of Skull Has A Secret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This Story Is Happy End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ode To Sue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
And Suddenly, Ezra Didn't Feel So Alone Anymore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
What The Hell Happened To Mega64? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Summer Semester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stranger (Mega64) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Drat (Talk) 12:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WjBscribe 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DKP[edit]

DKP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a wondefully written bunch of WP:OR. It's obvious a lot of work and thought has gone in to this but since it's very clearly a lot of original research and completely unsourced, I cannot argue for it's inclusion here on Wikipedia. It has been tagged ((confusing)) and ((unreferenced)) for a while now without any improvement. Perhaps a home can be found for it somewhere - just not here. Arkyan 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Mailer diablo citing WP:CSD#G12. Pan Dan 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Shields[edit]

Chris Shields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Currently includes two people. The one born in 1954 is, in my opinion, clearly non-notable. The one born in 1970 hasn't had his notability sufficiently shown in the article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beastie (roller coaster)[edit]

Beastie (roller coaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rollercoaster. Not much bigger than would be found at a fairground. camelworks(Mclowes) 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't it be inconsistent to merge all the rides at Alton Towers into a single article, yet allow the rides at Disneyland et al to keep their own pages? Alton Towers is very large (the second-largest amusement park in Europe) and if the content of all the individual articles were merged into one, it would be ridiculously long. Iridescenti 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to expand on my original proposal a little, other rides at Alton Towers are notable in that they are/were World Firsts and most of them had extensive media coverage when opened. Although I agree with the above comment that an Alton Towers merge would make the article too long, I proposed a few weeks ago on Talk:Alton Towers that a separate article e.g. Notable rides at alton towers be created and all ride articles be merged into. However this is not in keeping with other theme park article formats. camelworks(Mclowes) 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment: An article being "too long" post-merger only says that the articles themselves needs to be pruned. I would be in favour of a merger into "Rides at Alton Towers" article, though. Andy Saunders 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World So Cold[edit]

World So Cold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of verifiability and notability Non notable single which contains no verifiable or worthy information for the article. I think it should be deleted. LuciferMorgan 23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Underpants (film)[edit]

Captain Underpants (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, this article is unsourced and I can find no information anywhere regarding this film. Given the popularity of this series I would expect some talk, but all I could find was people talking about this Wikipedia article. The article was created by a very new editor, whose other edits were unsubstantiated speculation. Even IMDB does not have an article on this, and, given their very loose criteria for inclusion, I suspect this indicates that this film is not happening. Rje 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Ender's Game. WjBscribe 00:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ender's Game (film)[edit]

Ender's Game (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This film has been talked about for many, many years now with no sign of being made. The official site has not been updated in two years, and there has been no news in that time. We are an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball, we should not have an article on every book/game/comic that might conceivably be made into a film at some point in the future. This film has not been green-lit and is not in production, it should also not be on Wikipedia. Rje 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Friends School[edit]

Cambridge Friends School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notablility or if it even exists. Vanity article, created by User:Rsh1993. Speedy changed to prod, then some anon decided to pull the prod tag claiming that non-notability wasn't enough to delete it. Sable232 17:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Listcruft, unsourcable. Mo0[talk] 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of personifications of Death in fiction[edit]

List of personifications of Death in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not unlike all these "in popular culture" articles. List is potentially too long to be of any interest and is currently a dump of trivial and rather random information with no encyclopedic value. (not to mention dubious entries like The Doors) Pascal.Tesson 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Deathcruft. :-) Pascal.Tesson 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have that, it's called userspace. Anyone can keep pretty much anything they want there. Otto4711 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that suggestion is that if any of this stuff gets merged back to the main article it will serve as a license to any editor to add his or her favorite example to the list, which will cause the section to swell, which will lead someone to spin it off into a sub-article, and the cycle continues. 12:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, that is a potential problem, but an article about the personification of Death is hardly complete without SOME mention of the hundreds of fictional examples of it. Elijya 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at the article. There are a huge number of examples from "popular fiction," broken down by medium. Probably too many. No more are needed. Otto4711 15:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Consensus to delete per not being notable. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Where the Fish Lives[edit]

This Is Where the Fish Lives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

questionable notability; page created by mastermind of project Lars T. 17:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Consensus to delete, duplicate article no meaningful content. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota main land regions[edit]

Minnesota main land regions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article duplicates Regions of Minnesota. Kablammo 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin al Jilani al Husayni al Haqqani al Khwajagani an-Naqshbandi[edit]

Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin al Jilani al Husayni al Haqqani al Khwajagani an-Naqshbandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable living person (Previous unsigned comment by Grmagne)

it is in now.--Sefringle 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAFIAA[edit]

MAFIAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism with no non-trivial independent reliable sources. --Interiot 18:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Morikawa[edit]

Mariko Morikawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Manson[edit]

Candy Manson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Nomination withdrawn Epbr123 21:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. --Chris (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evms consulting group[edit]

Evms consulting group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pure spam. -- RHaworth 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: O (Org., corp., or product ) ◄Zahakiel► 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 17:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biloxi High School[edit]

AfD nomination appears to have been made because it's "not a notable school" and "not eligible for an article" I am completing this nomination as a procedural matter, not in support of it. It was half-completed. ElKevbo 04:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, next time, please don't. Someone who isn't able to list something properly clearly doesn't have the experience of Wikipedia necessary to know that this is a contentious issue. There is no right to waste people's time here. I urge you next time to use your common sense and leave it alone. Grace Note 06:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slow down there high speed. Someone else did most of the work to make this AfD nomination - I just cleaned up the mess. Don't shoot the messenger. --ElKevbo 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say, next time, don't bother. Just inform the newbie of how it is and clear it up the other way, by getting rid of it. I know you're only trying to be helpful but... Grace Note 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that ElKevbo made the correct choice here. Per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers If you do determine, or sincerely believe, a newcomer has made a mistake, such as forgetting to put book titles or the names of ships in italics, or failing to make useful links, try to correct the mistake yourself. Don't slam the newcomer; remember, this is a place where anyone can edit and, in a very real sense, it is therefore each person's responsibility to edit, not to criticize or supervise others. Wikipedia:Assume good faith might apply as well. Signed Jeepday 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I request this article to be deleted, since it is not a notable school. I'm sure it exists, but it is not eligible for an article. OfficerPhil 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis article is not an important article about an educational facility with no importance. Please delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.21.139 (talk • contribs) 17:37, March 21, 2007

Delete Obviously those in charge of this article have blatantly abused what meaningless authority they posses. It is probably the "Upper crust" of said institution and not a reflection of the majority.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrGod (talk • contribs) 15:54, March 22, 2007

DELETE This should be deleted because it exposes harmful information about students.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.76.31 (talk • contribs) 22:20, March 22, 2007

Comment You're not allowed to vote twice, and your comments, under Wikipedia deletion rules, count for much less if you don't get a user name. Any administrator who closes this discussion should take note of the two comments from the same IP address. Noroton 04:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I actually think the "exposes harmful information about students" is on to something, although I wouldn't put it nearly that strongly. There are extensive lists in the article of names of student government officers. I think that's (a) unlikely to be referenced; (b) I'm uncomfortable giving the world their names, even though it's high school, not elementary or middle school; (c) probably going to attract vandals; and (d) there's a slight possibility of libel. All in all it's a bad idea to have it, so I'm going to delete the list. I'll repost this on the talk page. If anyone has a good reason to keep the list, I'd of course welcome a comment there. Noroton 04:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is more complicated than I thought. There's been some discussion about this on the talk page. I'm going to look into it before making any edits.Noroton 04:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools, a listing used by the Schools WikiProject --ElKevbo 04:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as blatant hoax Newyorkbrad 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Edwin Davis[edit]

James Edwin Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious hoax. The original version claimed a death date in the future and accomplishments in the 19th century despite the subject being in his twenties today. The external link in the article goes nowhere and I found no corroboration with a Google search. Prod was unsuccessful. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Fails WP:MUSIC. Mo0[talk] 01:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Alvarez (rapper, songwriter, producer)[edit]

Juan Alvarez (rapper, songwriter, producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poorly sourced autobiography[26] of an aspiring musician. He just doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got all their albums. Bobanny 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their yet-to-be-released albums? ◄Zahakiel► 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they don't take up nearly as much space and aren't as noisy as those "released" kind >;) Bobanny 00:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wonder if you can nominate a user for deletion based on WP:CRYSTAL. ◄Zahakiel► 02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (CSD G7) - author blanked the page. WjBscribe 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Porto Alegre Innovation[edit]

The Porto Alegre Innovation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is clearly non-neutral in its point of view. It takes an advocacy tone toward its subject. The article contains considerable original research, is not encyclopedic in tone, is very lengthy, and frankly is likely beyond help from someone without a conflict of interest. The author maintains that "the world needs to know" about the process involved, but maintains a web site that is even more detailed; that web site is a more proper venue for this article than Wikipedia. Realkyhick 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content and redirect page to Participatory budgeting - normally I'd vote to merge, but sifting through all the OR and other unencyclopedic verbiage is too herculean a task to expect of volunteer wikipedians. The creator has not contributed to any other articles, for what that's worth. Bobanny 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The author has read our comments, essentially agreed with them, and blanked the article (see the article talk page). Move for summary judgment, your honor. Realkyhick 08:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Rlevse 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halogen Software[edit]

Halogen Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I speedy deleted this as an advert requiring rewrite. The author asked me about recreation, and I advised notability must be shown with sound references. It has been recreated, slightly modified, without any substantiation. It currently fails WP:N and WP:V (or WP:ATT) Tyrenius 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another creditable reference to the reference section. If there are certain parts of the article which you are specifically stating to be reading like an ad, please let me know and I will work on them. This is not meant to read like an advert, it is meant to be an information piece just like other major companies listed on Wiki. Thank you for your consideration. Kanata500 13:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC) — Kanata500 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Is the word =vapid= considered inoffensive language on Wikipedia? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly moved in the right direction, but under WP:N and WP:CORP it is necessary to have multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources. There is a reasonable piece in the Wall Street Journal, but that on its own is not sufficient. Tyrenius 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convalesce (Character)[edit]

Convalesce (Character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=%22kishawna+lawson%22&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 only shows this article. No notability KeithD 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Realkyhick 05:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't even have an article for the comic. Also delete Convalesce (a redirect). -- Black Falcon 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin City Fan[edit]

Twin City Fan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Insufficient evidence of notability FisherQueen (Talk) 21:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per WP:NEO. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forum pervert[edit]

Forum pervert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism; creator removed prod without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, nominator is single-purpose sockpuppet/troll. — CharlotteWebb 16:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsford Mendon High School[edit]

Not notable, no citations Andrew Robertson 21:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 06:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Fowler[edit]

Anna Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(First nomination)

This is a minor presenter on a minor quiz show, about whom nothing is said to indicate any wider significance. I can't see at the last AfD that any evidence required by WP:BIO was presented — only the subjective (and, I think, untrue) claim that the programmes she's presented have been well-known in the U.K. Not in my manor, squire. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Portland, Oregon. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winterhaven School[edit]

Winterhaven School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary/middle school, article is content-free. Katr67 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Redirect and merge to Portland Public Schools (Oregon). Katr67 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alektra Blue[edit]

Alektra Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. She may have appeared in about 76 movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. Epbr123 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean she doesn't have a website of her own? She does, it's right in the article. Not that that's sufficient, but as long as you are saying it, it may at least be true. She's also pretty prolific: 76 or 97 or whatever isn't sufficient in itself, but neither is it nothing. --AnonEMouse (squeak)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Harryboyles 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Beast[edit]

Sea Beast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obviously invented subject. Peter O. (Talk) 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry it looked like nonsense, i was updating it piecemeal, ill take your advice about the preview function — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvw204 (talk • contribs)

  • Deletion logs show this page has been speedy-deleted at the following time indexes:
22:11, 22 March 2007
19:39, 22 March 2007
05:27, 22 March 2007
also, note that this page was not blank when it was originally speedied, but contained a whole lot of fanciful information about the supposed creature's taxonomy and behavior, as well as a silly picture. Feeeshboy 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the author's most recent edit blanked the page. Speedy is probably correct. --Sigma 7 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by Mel Etitis. utcursch | talk 12:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiles mcfrafon[edit]

Jiles mcfrafon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(({text))} - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Consensus to delete per WP:ATT and WP:NOT. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party Advance minigames[edit]

List of Mario Party Advance minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Game guide content that is both listcruft and fancruft. Take it to a fan wiki of some sort. RobJ1981 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, but that was just a comment, the lack of attributality and encyclopedic nature is the problem EliminatorJR Talk 00:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party minigames (ongoing)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 2 minigames (result was keep)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames (also nominated: 4, 5; result was nomination withdrawn)
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames (also nominated: 6, 7; result was no consensus)
My reccomendation is that they all be nominated for deletion at once, because they're virtually identical in terms of content. If they're kept, they're all kept. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all users saying "there is no source" as a deletion reason: I am about to add a source, so now it is attributed to a reliable source and you have no reason for a delete vote. Henchman 2000 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Consensus to delete. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting anime[edit]

Fighting anime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article does not establish the notability of the term. Given the user who contested the prod a few weeks to improve the article but nothing has changed. I'm not going to list the policies that the article violates, it really should have been speedied Squilibob 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 20:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kriya reiki[edit]

The article was on prod on the ground that the Wikipedia is not a How to guide. While the article certainly needs work on the ritual itself appear to be notable to me (though I know nothing about the Indian rituals). Can the article be saved or merged somewhere? See also Vishitao Reiki for the same problem Alex Bakharev 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest the changes?[edit]

If desirable changesare suggested, I can immediately incorporate them in the article. I wish that the article stays there, and of course, meets the requirements of the site too!Rekhaa Kale 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did those who know the subjects vote?[edit]

I am sorry to say that again the persons not knowing a certain subject are objecting the presence of some pages. In fact more and more new subjects giving scholarly research must be added to wikipedia to enrich it. But it is not happening. I will be happy if the articles Kriya Reiki as well as Vishitao Reiki are retained and I am given a fortnight's time to edit it and bring it to your standards after your experts give suggestions about changes.

I am a writer with more than 20 books published over last decade and about 6 of them are still doing well in market. So, I am well aware of the language requirements of publishing media. So, Please be sure that the information in the articles IS meeting standards of the subject.

As far as the format of your site is concerned, I am open to changes. But deletion means killing new authors!!!

Rekhaa Kale 18:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 20:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vishitao Reiki[edit]

Vishitao Reiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOT (how-to guide), WP:NOR (no sources) and looks to be a spammish essay. Author is also inserting similar spam into Past life and Pastlife. JuJube 23:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did those who know the subjects vote?[edit]

I am sorry to say that again the persons not knowing a certain subject are objecting the presence of some pages. In fact more and more new subjects giving scholarly research must be added to wikipedia to enrich it. But it is not happening. I will be happy if the articles Kriya Reiki as well as Vishitao Reiki are retained and I am given a fortnight's time to edit it and bring it to your standards after your experts give suggestions about changes.

I am a writer with more than 20 books published over last decade and about 6 of them are still doing well in market. So, I am well aware of the language requirements of publishing media. So, Please be sure that the information in the articles IS meeting standards of the subject.

As far as the format of your site is concerned, I am open to changes. But deletion means killing new authors!!!

I would love to have suggestions about desired changes[edit]

I know that this is an article on a totally different subject, but that must not be the cause of deletion. I wish to share this knowledge with all. Also, there are many who wish to get this info, but are not conversant with ways to vote and so on.

Can I know how I can edit the article so that it meets the requirements of the site?

Being a writer, I am aware of the norms of publishing and media. So, if any section of the article is violating these norms according to you, pl. let me know. So that I can Improve.

Rekhaa Kale 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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