< May 3 May 5 >
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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Jo Allen[edit]

Tiffany Jo Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable singer, she has never been signed to a major label or had any chart singles on major music charts. There is hardly any reliable sources anywhere. Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mansion stage[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax, or at the least a non-notable type of stage. Only Google hits are for "Luigi's Mansion" stages. Doesn't seem to be a notable type of stage. Relatively few relevant hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'll see if I can't crack some of that into the article later tonight (dinner's on the stove!). --Dhartung | Talk 00:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 G10 -- I guess that works too, if not G3 -- by DGG. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmet sarp[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No reliable source google search.[2] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Philippe 17:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sulo Kolkka[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 close due to a previous but still-ongoing discussion on the same article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Creed[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sean Creed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Looks like this one shouldn't be, then.  RGTraynor  09:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mumford[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Inflatophilia[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. All the ghits shown in google search are non-RS. No hint in google books [3]. Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Inflation fetish and Inflatophilia are not same term. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - Well if you're such as expert ;-) would you mind explaining the difference as inflation fetish is clearly notable based upon google hits Francium12 (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're such as expert ;-) would you mind explaining the difference between Breast expansion fetishism and Boobphilia? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that google doesn’t quite understand the difference between inflatophillia and inflation fetish itself. But I can’t help thinking that this is simply for systemic bias in VfD if this was to be deleted. If google is anything to go by it seems there are people actually into this stuff so can anyone explain how this can fail on notability?

As I understand it inflatophillia is an odd fetish which involves using inflatable objects as parahillia. Think latex balloons and the like.

There is also a different fetish which seems to be about inflated women which I would term body inflation fetish. As one could imagine it seems to exist more in comics and art than in the real world as that would be rather dangerous(http://humanballooncd2005.tripod.com/) Anyone can check out this link and several others on the Internet to see that such a thing does actually exist.

I think all such terms are used rather interchangeably. Inflation fetishism and expansion fetishism seem to be similar terms. Maybe an article called expansion fetishism could group them all together if only so I could amusingly add an expand tag Francium12 (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - Nabla (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hand[edit]

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

While he is genuine, he appears to be a fairly minor commentator on a local radio station. I've cleaned out some of the more dubious BLP violations, leaving a rather sorry stub; while it probably could be cleaned up, I don't really think it's worth saving. A search for him on the BBC London website only brings up a couple of hits (the 15 or so hits are misleading - if you check the URLs most are to the same page), and there doesn't appear to be any mention of him on the BBC website since the end of the 2007 cricket season. The Google Test again shows he exists, but I'm not convinced there's enough to establish notability. More than willing to be convinced otherwise. (Note: I've posted a notification of this AFD at WP:WikiProject Cricket; presumably if he's notable someone there will be able to defend him, and if none of them have heard of them it'll argue against his notability.) — iridescent 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a go at beefing up the piece on Kevin Hand, although my ineptitude means that someone should add working links where I have made references to other relevant materials. He is certainly interesting and relevant, based on the points I have added to his piece - ball-by-ball commentary on cricket is a vital element of accessibility for blind and partially sighted people and the MCC and BBC's commitment to ball-by-ball commentary is a large contribution to that need in the UK - Kevin Hand's work for the BBC is important to that. People all over the world access the service and discuss it, amongst other places, on the Middlesex Supporter's website MTWD. these are "high accesss" parts of the internet - MTWD achieving some 1.5M to 2M hits per annum from some tens of thousands of people.

I agree that the article still needs more work, but I would strongly advocate that it should be kept and improved, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian L Harris (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 "Les noms" to Marie-Thérèse Morlet and keep that one. Sandstein (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Les noms de personne sur le territoire de l'ancienne Gaule du VIe au XIIe siècle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Les noms de personne sur le territoire de l'ancienne Gaule du VIe au XIIe siècle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I see no evidence to indicate notability. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because on closer inspection the author does not appear to be notable, either:

Marie-Thérèse Morlet (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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin America fleet[edit]

Virgin America fleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

lacks notability and, because WP:AIRLINES deemed registrations irrelevant, page also lacks relevance. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Stone[edit]

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

Huh? Even after reading the (long) article I can't see why this is here. Looks like an elaborate vanity page. —Chowbok ☠ 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stacie Hayez[edit]

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

Claims to multiple works, but no real assertation of notability. Finding sources proved difficult since there're about 8 million people with this name, but I'm turning up nothing verifiable on this author. Possible COI at work too, not to mention a misspellt name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Notability is not even asserted--this thing should've been speedied. No claim is even made that this writer has published one single word--instead, she has written 15 short stories, which ordinarily would be insufficient to establish notability even if they had been published. Looks like a weak attempt at WP:AUTO. Qworty (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send Out Scuds[edit]

Send Out Scuds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sower Seed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A band that appears to completely fail WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Deleted (non-admin closure) by User:Pascal.Tesson per CSD A7 - Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance. WilliamH (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC) CSD G1, patent nonsense. WilliamH (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Giants[edit]

Long Island Giants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I added a PROD tag to this page, on the grounds that it was non-notable, autobiographical, and created specifically for vandalism. User:M.malone.11 removed the PROD tag, saying that it was not an autobiography. The other two concerns still stand. Also, the page was previously speedy deleted under criterion A7 (article does not state subject's significance). — Insanity Incarnate 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article states that they are a Little League baseball team, but it looks like a joke article and [this site] seems to indicate they are a minor league football team. The question of deletion hinges on whether there is a real team by that name in whatever sport, and whether that team is notable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is a real team, deletion and recreation of a proper article if necessary is still the best way to go. --neonwhite user page talk 02:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why? If there is a notable team by that name the article could just be edited back to stub that represents the real team. Deleting and recreating with the same name would be pointless. But if notability can't be demonstrated then it should be deleted. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it tends to avoid any confusion that may occur from having an article history and a talk page about a different subject. --neonwhite user page talk 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockball[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Can find no semi-reliable sources to back up the article's content. It contains spurious details (no G-hits for "Hawaiian Tropics Tour of Hawaii" or "Kate Dorito", for example). Smacks of WP:MADEUP. Gr1st (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sandstein (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation Army filmography[edit]

Salvation Army filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The information in this list is just too trivial. Garion96 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why wasn't this article proposed for deletion when it initially was created by Rhyddfrydol more than two years ago? It certainly would have saved him/her - as its major contributor - a lot of time and effort. However, as much as I hate to see someone's hard work deleted, too much of this article - such as American Gigolo (1980) Richard Gere's character gets an appeal letter from the Salvation Army - amounts to nothing more than trivia and hardly constitutes "Salvation Army filmography," which should be limited to films in which a major focus is placed on the organization. MovieMadness (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Indeed this article is very extensive and as a whole would not be found elsewhere, despite lacking sources it HAS merit. It may not qualify as a WP: filmography, it certainly can be counted among the many 'Lists of Films' WP supports. I think it should be recreated as a list. Wikipedia has many many films lists which are not as extensive as this one. If WP can handle List of films about computers and List of biker films it can keep this one. EraserGirl (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At a glance, it appears in the List of films about computers and List of biker films, the movies truly are about the subject matter. As I stated above, the major problem with this article is that most of the film's cited are not about the Salvation Army but rather merely make mention of it or refer to it in a vague or trivial way. If it was limited to films in which a major focus is placed on the organization, I would vote to keep it, although it would be a very short article indeed. MovieMadness (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I concede your point, the subject is only tangential in many cases. Perhaps curtailing it to ones where the Salvation Army is a major element would improve the article and bring it to a more acceptable form. The author of the article should keep his research, perhaps in his own sandbox with those intentions. I will change my vote for that reason, the research should be put to better use, but the article as it stands does not conform. EraserGirl (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Spartaz Humbug! 21:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Cupola[edit]

Order of the Cupola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent sources verify notability. Artichoke2020 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderianism[edit]

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

Another hoax/made up one day religion. Curiously, there is one faintly relevant reference here in a discussion of relations between Mormonism and Christianity; but the quote is "Modernism, Liberalism, or Sunderianism does not constitute a rigorous and well-defined school of theology, but is rather an inclination by some writers and teachers to integrate Christian thought into the spirit of the Age of Enlightenment". Nothing to do with the "Voice of Ishbar" or the "Roman-Catholic Turks of Antioch" in the 11th century. There were Turks in Antioch then (the Seljuks captured it in 1084) but I doubt if many of them were Roman Catholics.

The two Pontifices Maximii (sic) of the religion are said to be Vincent Patillet and Connor Steelberg. From this and this it appears that "Vincent Patillet, 4ème 4" and "Connor Steelberg, 4ème4" are classmates at the Lycée-Collège international, Saint-Germain-en-laye, which must the headquarters of the religion.

An article on "Connor Steelberg" was speedily deleted as nonsense/non-notable last year.

Delete as hoax. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm just going to say that the quote for Sunderianism on that site mentioned above was a stupid cop paste done by some religious site. My friend had inserted the the word Sunderianism onto the wikipedia page for Christianity, because for a brief moment it was aChristian religion, it has now changed to it's own religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.157.173.167 (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sandstein (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish jurists[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Jewish jurists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Guess this should be removed, as the topic isn't quantifiable, and thus doesn't give any weight in special notability of the subjects. →AzaToth 20:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (non-admin closure). Per WP:SNOW, undivided consensus that significant coverage in independent reliable sources asserts the subject's notability, and that the article meets no deletion criteria. Nominator withdrew. WilliamH (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimo kissing[edit]

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

No sources or references that make this legit. Is this for real? GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy because the article doesn't meet any criterion for deletion. Interesting was an answer to "is this for real?" -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrawl the AfD. I honestly thought this was a joke. Didn't know it was an actual term. My apologies. Close the discussion. It's a keep! -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - Nabla (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Pearce[edit]

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

Article about a minor soap opera character who appeared for the first time on the show at April 18, 2008 and article created at April 19, 2008. Contains no real world information. Fails notability per WP:SOAPS and WP:FICTION. Prod was reverted with no exhalation and without establishing notability or adding any real world information. Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to guess why some people are reverting edits without edit summaries. In fact, I could just revert the edit because the rules for declining a prod say clearly that we need a summary. The information you are mentioning in the article can already be found in other related articles. I think we need a more general discussion. A soap opera is something more than a collection of its characters and its episodes. That a soap is notable it doesn't mean that every of its character it's as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Content exists already at main article, unlikely search term - Nabla (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camera Can't Lie discography[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Camera Can't Lie discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seperate discography page for a band with 2 releases. Both releases are already mention in the band's main page, so there doesn't seem like there's any point in this article. Drewcifer (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Most arguments for deletion (that the content is bad) are unpersuasive. While the content at the time of nomination may have been inappropriate, the article has now been rewritten and only one person contests that the topic as such is encyclopedic. Sandstein (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drug policy[edit]

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

Article is only a POV of one man about drug policy and addiction. It should be either scrapped and rewritten, or else redirected back to Prohibition (drugs) as it was before. As of now it is not a page about drug policy in general. NJGW (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author actually started this article on my suggestion, after he contributed drug-policy related material that belonged neither in War on drugs nor in Prohibition (drugs). What he didn't do though, was to write a lead to introduce the topic before pasting that material. I have tried to make the article a bit more balanced by writing a lead and starting a section about individual countries, and have also merged some material from Prohibition (drugs). I don't think we need to delete the material he wrote. It would be better to move it to a new article Drug policy of Sweden and to include a brief summary here. --Cambrasa confab 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The material that he wrote is already at another article: Nils Bejerot. The author has also tried numerous times to include the material at Cannabis (drug)‎. It seems the author has a narrow focus, and a wp:coi, as illustrated by this quote on their talk page. If a page is to remain at Drug policy, perhaps more seasoned editors should be in charge of its rewrite. NJGW (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bejerot's and the present Swedish government's view has never been that drug policy is equal to only prohibitions. This is also mentioned in the text. The "follow up" in the text is normally done by a social worker employed by the local Social Services board. Parts of Bejerot's different comments in the US. war on drugs is less relevant i an articel about The drug policy of Sweden and more material of another type is needed.. The article Nils Bejerot is different. And I guess that the parts with comments about the U.S war on drugs is of interest. Dala11a (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

2) "As of now it is not a page about drug policy in general" Yes, but the page was started only a few days ago. Rome was not built in one day. One person has made a lot of complains about the text, compare talk page. I suggested that he should enter a subsection with critics. He refused. I have earlier today asked for a third opinion according to Wipedia rules for conflict solution. This is the correct way.

3) Redirection of Drug policy to Drug Prohibition is not correct. That is really POV. A drug policy can include many other things than prohibitions.

4) The original start of the article included a text abut that different section should inform a different views on Drug policy. For the moment only one section exist but as I have explained above is there reasons for that.Dala11a (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply A "lead" section did exist, but was a todo list with no context, so I moved it to the talk section. This is at best a definition (drug policy is a government's or institution's policy on drugs), not an encyclopedia article. Interesting that although Dala11a claims that the redirect to Drug prohibition is incorrect, al l the material inserted upto that point was about prohibition issues in Sweeden (and one man's influence on those policies). NJGW (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The author just reinserted the todo list:

This page was started with the goal that it it can have a broader view than for example Prohibition (drugs) ,War on drugs, Cannabis(drug) or Legal history of marijuana in the United States or articles about the Drug policy in a specific country. It is to be hoped that each section can give a presentation of a specific policy. The articel is still under construction. Please feel free to start a new section about a different and important view on Drug Policy, of course including sources according to Wikipedia rules etc. not just your own opinion.

NJGW (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Dala11a Understood, except that such an article would not have a generic title like Drug policy. It would be more appropriate for an article like Drug policy to have a section on Sweden, with a brief mention of Bejerot, a teaser on why his ideas are notable, and a link to a larger article. Eauhomme (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)n[reply]
  • 'Reply to Eauhomme' I feel sympathy with your last statement but I need time for to find a solution that don't lose the content etc. Dala11a (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to NJGW I is of course possible to have a page called Drug policy by country. But since there are many countries will the text about each country bee limited in Drug policy by country. It is of course possible to have Drug policy as a disambig page. But there is still another angel on drug policy that is not suitable or relevant for an articel about one single person on or about a specific country. Compare with my original to do list. So do you have any suggestions for a headline for that article? Or is it just that you don't want to have that article?Dala11a (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The todo list I believe you are referring to was to discuss: What is possible; How is carried out: what methods are used and in what mix; and Why is it done, what is the theory about addiction behind the anti-drug policy; as well as a broader view than for example Prohibition (drugs) ,War on drugs, Cannabis (drug) or Legal history of marijuana in the United States or articles about the Drug policy in a specific country.
First, I think that "how is [policy] carried out" and "why is it done" are issues which belong in the sections/articles for individual nations, and if those sections/articles are numerous enough, then a small summery of these different policies would become useful, but that still belongs in Drug policy by country. "What is possible" sounds like an essay, and might be difficult without venturing into OR territory, but maybe you can clarify what you have in mind for such a section/article. Similarly, I'm not sure what you mean by "a broader view than [other articles]." So far that is not what you have been working on/towards, so if you give us some example of what you mean we can give more meaningful opinions. NJGW (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to NJGW: As I already have replied above, a solutin is not fixed immediately. What is possible a not necessary an essay. The present Tree strike law in the US. seems (?) to be based on the assumption that a person with tree drug offenses is not possible to treat (other people knows more about the tree strike laws). Other countries have a different official view. There must bee traceable sources about that. And so on. Dala11a (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Sleuth[edit]

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

This is not sufficiently notable due to its lack of coverage in sources independent of the subject. Article was created by a user who probably has a conflict of interest. --Snigbrook (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yisroel Valis[edit]

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

Fails to assert notability: domestic murder (or suspected murder) of a baby is a tragic situation, but hardly an uncommon one. The whole article appears to have sprung from a polemical essay at a blog. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it could have a place in some appropriate article - e.g. if it has some demonstrable broader notability concerning the relationship between Israeli secular criminal law and Halakha. Simply as a criminal case over a baby's death, it doesn't merit inclusion. (It was in 2006 BTW). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sandstein (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Douglas[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ann Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A minor character played in... 10 episodes of the Bold and the Beautiful, which airs more than 200 episodes per year. Article contains no real world information and fails WP:SOAPS and WP:FICTION Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with your analysis of the current policy disputes and the way they manifest themselves in AFDs. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 the arguments given. Pointless article.. Black Kite 19:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Metro Tunnel[edit]

Montreal Metro Tunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article doesn't really refer to anything and is just a placeholder article for the succession boxes for crossings of the St. Lawrence River and Rivière des Prairies. We would be better served by having those succession boxes direct to Line 2 Orange (Montreal Metro) and Line 4 Yellow (Montreal Metro) rather than an article bidon. Montréalais (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). There is very clear consensus that this is a legitimate, discerning, discriminate topic of notability, supported by reliable sources, and is not the POV can of worms that some commentators have initially thought it might be. WilliamH (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video games notable for negative reception[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Video games notable for negative reception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Certainly there are games out there that are more critically panned than others, and some are just massive disappointments. And yes, anybody could easily say that this article has been well-referenced and sourced. But regardless, all of this information can be covered on their respective articles and therefore there isn't much point in keeping this article - which appears to be largely trivial and just a little POV. Valtoras (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

consensus can change, the afd may result in the criteria being change or significant edits. --neonwhite user page talk 20:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the spirit[edit]

Thats the spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Professional name of a non-notable person. PeterSymonds | talk 17:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Hitler´s escape[edit]

Theory of Hitler´s escape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is original research. A typical conspiracy theory --Church of emacs (Talk | Stalk) 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the article needs a lot of work, but most of these theories are published elsewhere, so someone just needs to cite sources for the genuine published theories (however whacky), and delete the imaginary, original research ones. Any volunteers? Perhaps we should add a comment that these theories are rejected by most historians. Dbfirs 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll join in the fun of rewriting/citing if there are any website references. I don't have any books on the subject. Reconvene on the talk page I suppose? -FrankTobia (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best reference seems to be a book called "Hitler's Escape" by Ron T Hansig. Published in 2005 by Athena Press; ISBN 1932077820. A synopsis can be found at www.hitlersescape.com. I don't have access to the text of the book, and I don't know where Mr Hansig stands on the Crackpot -> Historian scale, but he seems to have put forward an argument slightly stronger than those on which several other Wikipedia articles are based. (perhaps they should all be deleted?) (but I can remember when Global warming used to be in this category!) Dbfirs 21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that there were no sources is simply wrong: the sources are the newspaper articles and the autobiography. There are only no internet links. But all the newspaper articles can be found in archives. And the autobiography "Speaking Frankly "....I have that autobiography and the statement, given in this article is true. So, there ARE sources, but no internet sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.32.54 (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not that sources don't exist. Surely you recognize that there are no sources cited within the article. If there are newspaper and book sources, you can cite them. Even then, though, I still feel like you'll run into WP:SYN issues. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn´t write the article. But I was in an archive and I have the autobiography. That is why I can merely say that the sources exist and all written in the article is true (which on the other hand doesn´t mean that I think it´s a good article). Much must be improved. But I also do not know any internet source to cite. However once again: If you go into an archive and see those mentioned articles of 1947 and 48, you´ll see everything is correct. —Preceding comment added by 62.134.104.22 Does anyone know an internet site of the newspapers, which are mentioned in the article? There, we could probably find the articles in the archives and so give a good citing, couldn´t we?

As I said, much must be improved: but, if we can get reliable internet sources of the newpaper articles, I´ll propose to keep.......if we can get internet sources of the newspaper articles.......and the part of Byrnes´ autobiography, "Speaking Frankly", I don´t know any internet source, but I can say, what´s written in the article is true

The user "Realy nice guy" suggests to merge a more compact version with the main article (see disussion page)......what about this idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.104.120 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for a merge, I oppose until the information to be merged is sourced and has citations. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know an internet page where to find the newspaper articles? I read them all in archives in New York, Washington etc. and what is written in the article is right (which does not necessarily mean the article need not be improved). But I don´t know any internet source. And the autobiography "Speaking Frankly", years ago I read that book and I can remember that this statement of Stalin was a part of that biography. Another question: Does anyone know a pathologist to ask, if a body can burn in that time and only ash remains? Is that possible? I don´t know, but generally, instead of crying there were no references, I would search for 1.)an internet site with these newspaper articles;2.)a copy of the autobiography of Byrnes;3.)medical sources, if it was possible to burn a body to ash in that time. By the way.......as aforementioned the theories are already published, so, I wouldn´t say this article was an establishment of a theory. It simply needs quite a lot of referencing, rewriting and general clean-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.32.14 (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, but leaning towards keep, so defaults to keep. Wizardman 17:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Kiviranta[edit]

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

Article about a fictional character of a soap opera. It has no real world information. It fails guidelines for WP:SOAPS. Magioladitis (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Why did you place this in the "Places and transportation" category?--Oakshade (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed it. Obviously a mistake. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list you shown me it's a perfect place for many nominations. Check the guidelines in WP:SOAPS:

Character articles should always be written from a "real world" perspective, and should definitely not consist simply of in-universe plot summary. As such, it should include:

  • Response - That's an excellent case for article improvement, not deletion. That WikiProject Soap Operas (WP:SOAPS) project page (not by any means a notability guideline) you quoted was created for uniformity and improvement of soap opera character articles and doesn't mandate deletion. A wiki-improvement tag is more appropriate. I don't subscribe to the "We have to destroy this article in order to save it" mentality. --Oakshade (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response They are hundreds of fictional character articles not having any notability. The important is to improve the soap opera's article and the list of characters article. Individual articles for characters which is impossible a real world information should be merge or delete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all impossible to improve this article, especially of that "real world information" that you feel the article must be deleted if it currently doesn't have (WP:SOAPS doesn't mandate deletion if an article is currently deficient of these things as you claimed). As it's major character in long running soap opera, all of the requested information can be found and likely known by millions of fans. Deleting is not the solution if an article needs work. --Oakshade (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And another note, this article actually does show what dates the character was created (one of the the original characters) and which actor played the character and when (Piitu Uski for it's entire run). There were no awards for the actor playing the character so that last "requirement" doesn't apply. Under your own criteria, this article "passes" the style guidelines set up in WP:SOAPS. --Oakshade (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and,. fwiw, there is no really agreed wording of WP:PLOT. at present it only indicates that articles should not be entirely plot summary. DGG (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...which this article is. It's only a plot but a line. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to facilitate discussion, I copy the relevant part from your comment there, although you didn't even bother to cut and paste: "Those aspects of WP:FICT which expand upon WP:NOT#PLOT are essentially an extension of consensus policy. There is general agreement that purely in-universe content is inappropriate for Wikipedia" Unfortunately, if anyone cares to go the the FICT page they will see right at the top: the following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. the reason it's only proposed is because there's no consensus, as the extremely long talk pages the demonstrate. probably it's time to mark rejected if people persist in refusing to compromise.DGG (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the degree of agreement and rationality at the SOAP guidelines might be a good example for some of the other discussions. According to them, all this needs is the addition of the real-world details about the character's part in the show. The people who do not want to follow reasonable compromise are not setting a good example here. DGG (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 close. You want a merge tag, not an articles for deletion tag. Merge does not mean delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sandra Romain awards and nominations[edit]

List of Sandra Romain awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Should be merged within original article; regardless of how big a name in porn she is (I don't personally know), there's no reason to have a separate article for it. Irk Come in for a drink! 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 close. This is NOT Articles for Merging. I will place a ((merge)) tag on the article instead. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belladonna awards and nominations[edit]

List of Belladonna awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not quite sure how big a name in porn she is, but what constitutes having her own page for awards and nominations? Should be merged within original article. Irk Come in for a drink! 16:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Wizardman 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni Vainio[edit]

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

Article about a fictional character of a soap opera. It has no real world information. It fails guidelines for WP:SOAPS. I prodded the article and my prod was reverted as "minor edit" without any explanation. Magioladitis (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, default to keep. Wizardman 17:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaro Vaalanne[edit]

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

Article about a fictional character of a soap opera. It has no real world information. It fails guidelines for WP:SOAPS Magioladitis (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is like opposing an episode article to be merged because it states that this is the fifth episode of the series, so it contains real world information. I think I should write contains no real world information but trivial which it is already found in the list of characters article. Better have a well-organised List of characters with short accurate character profiles than having 1403 character articles with variations of the episodes plots or plot summaries. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nizaam Hartley[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler with none-barely any information/references in the article iMatthew 2008 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boerseun (wrestler)[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler with none-barely any information/references in the article iMatthew 2008 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, go read the deletion guidelines next time. Dan100 (Talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vimeo[edit]

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

All I could find about this service was it mentioned as one of a choice of video upload places (ie such as YouTube or Vimeo) and one review (which I added) and an article about the creator of Vimeo being fired and putting up pictures of himself with a bong. Appears to be an entirely non notable web service. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment so all it takes to be notable is to get your press release printed in several places? I did check Google News. This is the sort of article ABOUT Vimeo that the New York Times wrote "The entrepreneurs who have started companies like ClipShack, Vimeo, YouTube and Blip.tv are betting that as consumers discover the video abilities built into their cellphones and digital still cameras" sort of like what I said in the nomination. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 22:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So that's just the New York Times. There are several other news articles and the like that more than mention Vimeo, such as this review by PC World, and this article by USA Today. Also, it certainly has notability for being the first to have HD support. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I didn't find that one...I actually added the review from PC world to the article (as I stated in the nom) I just wanted people to actually read the content instead of taking his comment at face value. Quoted from WP:WEB

This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:

* Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] * Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.

LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the PC World article nor the USA Today article fall under any of those categories. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HeartBreaker, The Original Tribute to Pat Benatar[edit]

HeartBreaker, The Original Tribute to Pat Benatar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tribute act. Fails WP:BAND. Also appears to be a WP:COI issue Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HeartBreaker, The Original Tribute to Pat Benatar
Official Pat Benatar Website :Link Page
Official Pat Benatar Fan Club - Links Page
"9 On The Town" Local Channel TV 9 Tribute:Segment. Bands listed on this archive page were included in a televised documentary, fully initiated by Channel 9 and unsolisited in any way by the artists in the documentary
Unsolicited Review in OC Weekly
Benatar Tribute Band - Photos and Interview of and with original artist

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benatartribute (talk • contribs)

It is non-notable as per WP:BAND. Can't explain it any better. The community will decide it's fate at the AfD. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC) According to that it does meet the guidlines as notable. Maybe the format isn't correct yet but I'm working on it. After all I only started on it last night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benatartribute (talk • contribs) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts. Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network. The above are quotes from the article you site. HB meets BOTH of these criteria. --Benatartribute (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't the only criteria and the "we" part of your post indicates the other issue. See WP:COI. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


COI States: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.

The "interestes of Wikipedia" will remain paramount once the article is complete. That's all that is required in the final revision.

It also states: There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.

This is simply a matter of editing. You have no knowledge of HB at this time so you cannot be the judge and jury. There will be reliable sources cited once the article is complete and it will remain neutral for the puposes of supporting the interestes of Wikipedia per it's suggested guidelines. I grew up with paper Encyclopaedias so I understand the concept. And, I will support the Five pillars. I really don't understand, however, why this has come so quickly under fire so early in the process and by whom? HeartBreaker has made notable accomplishments in the tribute community worthy of inclusion. Just for argument sake as with any documentary it's information in and infomation out. Likewise the neutral party observer even in a respected status can also be other than accurate and objective using verifiable sources and those often times must come from the source itself, otherwise it can be inaccurate, biased or subjective, thein can then lie the difference between fact and opinion. In a nutshell, this is all a very grey area and as the articles you site state, "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict exists." Basically, it says remain neutral and cite your sources and that should be enough said. You can't assume that every person who starts an article is there to promote their own self-interests. You must sometimes simply guide an individual to it's goal. For these purposes, that I know the rules, should be ALL that concerns you.

I don't know you people are but I think it ridiculous that you can sit in judgement of a band in a genre' you nothing about and imply that the article is for self-promotion when we have clearly been noted by KCAL-TV9, a notable source and OC Weekly also a notable source AND the original artist to whom we tribute. Just because I added the article DOES NOT mean I CANNOT add the entry. It states so above in the guidelines of COF. I think you need to go back and read the guidelines. The article is meant for it's intended purpose as an article of reference to the read. I have OTHER mediums in which to "advertise!" HB may not have as much recognition as other bands but we certainly ARE regocognized and notable and according to the guideline having the most regocnition is NOT the test.

Certainly, feel free to suggest and editing style but I see NO reason(s) to delete the article on the references you cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benatartribute (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC) — Benatartribute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you--Benatartribute (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you must understand the significance of a tribute band vs a cover band to make this argument. Tribute bands DO NOT generally record records, (especially of the original type that would be considered for some of the acknowledgements you cite) some do, but there are a vastly different set of circumstances for doing so than an original artist's goal. It is not about chart-topping. Tribute bands are significant because of the phenominon (this HAS been written about and documented in the media) that has developed in the last ten years. Tribute bands are NOT cover bands. This is basically a whole new breed of musician. That this has been written about is significant, in that context and that we are still around (where many have come and gone) is significant for the reasons stated. Please see tribute acts and The Iron Maidens there is a distinction about tribute bands vs cover bands that have obviously already made way into the wiki articles here tribute acts. HeartBreaker is significant relative to the genre for the reasons stated in the article. If I need more, I suppose I will need to know how to refine it. HeartBreaker has accomplished just exactly the things a tribute band's objectives are to accomplish, including acceptance by the original artists. HeartBreaker, HAS been featured in a televised media documentary about tribute bands on KCAL-TV 9 (which, IS a reliable source...is it not?) and written about in unsolicited non-second-party reviews (as in the OC Weekly is this not reliable??) and has won a significant award in a contest relative to the tribute community and published as such. Tributes do not compete in the Grammy Awards. Perhaps we are not the MOST notable of all tributes, but we ARE notable and significant within the context of the subject and indeed recognized, respected and known within the tribute community, which in itself is notable. To our own surprise, we have a reputation that has preceeded us. For example, we were speciffically contacted by VH-1 to perform in a show about tribute bands that would have included the original artist. I noted this in the article but someone edited it out so I assumed it was not relevant. How whould VH-1 know of us were we not notable or relevant? And particularily, we are one of the pioneer tributes in the genre with details as described in the article. Perhaps you can suggest specific documentation or proof I can provide to substantiate that if it would make us more relevant to your argument? Please read some of the other discussion here before making your judgement and offer suggestions to help with refining this rather that judgements that are not completey relevant to what you are compairing, thus biting the newbie. I will tell you, that I am not an editor, I have never written an article here before so please forgive any errors or omissions due to unfamiliarity with the process on my part and I will reiterate as I have in earlier discussions that I realize this is not a forum for advertisment. I certainly do that elsewhere. Likewise, I am not a youngster simply vying for attention or pushing promotions for the benefit of my garage band. I simply noticed that tribute acts and The Iron Maidens had made their way into the information pool and tells me that this new notable encyclopedic information and as a tribute, HeartBreaker is significant. And that said, I would most appreciate help based on all the facts rather than assumptions based on that which is perhaps simply not clear enough to you. Thank you.--Benatartribute (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, already tagged. Black Kite 23:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homegoing[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Dictionary Harland1 (t/c) 14:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Flowerparty☀ 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victimhood in America[edit]

Victimhood in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aborted and incomplete article, probably OR - there is too little to actually tell Lars T. (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was one edit (the creation) almost a week ago, since then nothing, also nothing more from Obri0210 (talk · contribs) who created the article .Lars T. (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (non-admin closure). Clear consensus that article needs improving, not deleting, on the basis of which the nominator withdrew. WilliamH (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of female stock characters[edit]

List of female stock characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, POV and OR by default article. M0RD00R (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 and merge ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doom of Mandos[edit]

Doom of Mandos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article establishes no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of part of the plot of the Silmarillion by JRR Tolkien. It is already mentioned in that article and does not need a whole article for a 3 sentence repetition. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Since I can't track down an article about "the elections" he ran in to merge to, I'm afraid it has to be deletion. Pigman☿ 01:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Mongo[edit]

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

Tough one, this. There are many many Google hits, but the sources cited in the article - an "unofficial website under construction since 2002", a YouTube video and some personal commentary - appear to be representative. Searching News and Scholar came up with only one source, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0735-2166.2004.00212.x, which is not about this individual but only mentions him as a local character in Memphis elections. I'm sure that this guy really is a household name in Memphis, but WP:V is policy and I am having serious trouble finding acceptable sources for what is, in the end, an article about a living individual, whihc paints that individual in less than flattering terms. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sausage surprise[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional food that seems to have just been created. No references. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Flowerparty☀ 02:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan_Thies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dan_Thies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notability guidelines FeldBum (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 and expand. No consensus. Now that we have an expert assisting with the article, it cam be further developed. My suggestion would be to keep and expand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pelikan tail[edit]

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

Article is founded on the false premise that Mr Pelikan invented the vee-tailed fighter airplane airplane tail with only two control surfaces, when such a craft had already seen combat. I was going to sit on this one, but it's probably pointless to wait.

The technical subject should be discussed in the article for the Magister. There little actual aero material here is unreferenced. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It could be a different design or it could not. The VT sources were written by the same undergraduate who wrote the article, and his instructor, both in the context of the classroom, not research. Very not WP:RS. From the PowerPoint's references, the NOVA documentary and first principles might have been their only references to Pelikan's work, making this article WP:OR as well. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Air&Space magazine also mentions the Pelikan tail[7](pages 2 and 3). I added this source as an inline reference to the article. Looks like this happened on 1998. To me, it looks very clearly like a different tail. The Boeing_X-32 article bears a photo where you can see clearly the differences with a vee tail (the pelikan tail has a flat surface between the tails) Image:USAF_X32B_cdp_boe_stovl_010.jpg. Mind you, the article is badly sourced with no inline references, but that's not grounds for deletion (I changed that a bit). One of the VT sources is actually a paper published at "42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit", so it's been published and can probably be used. Both VT sources have a good bunch of sources at the end, so they probably meet verifiability standards, altought the PDF is sourcing nothing and should probably be reworked into an example of an academic attempt to build a plane model with a pelikan tail (already did that). I attributed stuff so it's clear what is from the original analysis from Boeing and what is from those students --Enric Naval (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's really non-notable then I'll go for merging on another article. Until now, V-tail looks like the best one to merge into --Enric Naval (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Enric et al. I'm changing to merge with V-tail. Seems worthy of mention there, even if there isn't enough for a whole article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that the Pelikan tail appears to have weight problems that the V-tail does not have. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I think the Pelikan weight problem and V stress problem are both a manifestation of the need to apply greater forces at the control surfaces. We had more discussion at the talk page. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hum, ok, so, that totally falls out of my area of expertise, and the sources don't make any comparison like that. I'll leave those details to the guys from WP:AVIATION :) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also posted at WT:AIR, per recommendation at WT:AVIATION --Enric Naval (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon Club[edit]

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

Suspected hoax. No reliable sources. If the first reference is meant to be a book, I can find no trace of it. The second reference is about secret societies in general, and the third is about Cambridge University student societies in general; neither mentions this "Chameleon Club". Two Cambridge graduates I consulted had never heard of it: that may be just because it's so secret, but in that case it is not notable. The author's only other contribution is an attempt, also supported by an irrelevant reference, to insert a mention of this into the article on Harvard's Porcellian Club. Delete as probable hoax, in any case non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. If it becomes notable later on, it can be re-created at that time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City17: Episode 1[edit]

City17: Episode 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject is not notable, because it isn't released yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dekisugi (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say to that really, but this page is listed in several other places at the time, one being the main website, which gains about 140 visitors a day. Not alot, but this could have been any one of them.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only existing Third party resource is PlanetPhillip Which was not published by me.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Truly this page isnt as absurd as this one: [8], now this should have been deleted.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It show nothing. If you want to advertise do it somewhere else. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the are games not mods. Mods tends disappear overtime. Unless this mod got wide coverage like for example Black Mesa or MINERVA then this mod can stay. Till then this violates wikipedia rules. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there was never a reason to put people down at all. That was uncalled for, and is not a big issue in the argument. The argument is.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is growing, and it looks like the seed its using is pure fast-growing retard. various wiki editors are on the assault, calling c17 free advertising and non-sense. many developers use wiki’s and to note wikipedia also writes on things that are more or less based on conjecture and hearsay. like all of its ancient histories witch to most, no notable texts remain talking about them. so, is this just another example of how humanity tends to burn its histories. hl2 dm pro was hit, sourceforts was hit, and now us. Take a stand for your mod, and stand by us. In the Link below, you can post your opionon, and vote to keep the mod by adding *”’Keep”’ at the start of your paragraph.

Seriously now. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can IP users vote?. I thought only established users can vote. From above voters most of them either are new users and IP voters.--SkyWalker (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming that you accept the "fact" that this debate isn't a vote, sure IP users can make arguments. I think the running consensus is that the weight carried by an IP users opinion against a registered user is less, but in this case it doesn't even matter. Their statements are so incoherent as to be totally irrelevant. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then how would this discussion end If I had the only say to effect the outcome?--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article belonged on wikipedia, it would end in keep. If the article didn't belong, it would end in delete. !Votes canvassed wouldn't impact it. Are you suggesting that it is somehow proper to canvass for votes? Protonk (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've never argued before towards wiki standards, but what I am saying is that the fact that the mod would need to be overly popular is ridiculous. Aside the fact developing a mod is already hard enough. Getting into something of that status is pure luck. What I mean is that still, I might not be able to win. If no one else had made a point on it.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I belive that even Sourcefortse had something like this originally on their Forums, because how down right ridiculous this all is. How else would we make a point if I'm the only one arguing. If so, then this argument would be one sided, and I'd have no chance on making my Point understandable. I ask for you to take a look at the SourceForts Page Discussion, and read the archived deletion argument, and notice how many users joined the Wiki for the sole purpose of voicing their opionon.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How ridiculous all what is? Let's presume for a minute that you are in the right, that this article belongs in wikipedia. Surely, if that were the case, you could convince us of it. Some of us would see reason. There would be no reason for the creator of this mod to canvass for votes on his website. The debate could proceed on the merits of the article. And, frankly, NONE of their contributions help to make any keep argument more understandable. The whole thing might as well have been copy/pastes of all the wrong things to say. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then Why should a mod Not be on a wiki, is there a single reason. What I don't understand is for a subject to be on a wiki is of two things. It need to be either popular, or of some importance. What I mean by this, is it seems we would need to be featured in one or more magazines just to be able to even have a slight chance on the wiki. This is what you are asking of, and its very hard to do so. What I understand is that the Wiki has no limitation of space, and it is for the Community. Therefore it should stay, is why I say Keep. It hardly does any harm, and has a sole purpose for anyone whom would like to read about the mod, or would like to know more about it. The wiki is an encyclopedia, not a "you need to be awesome in order to be listed here website" I simply ask to allow this page to stay, but other would vote it for deletion, but why? It's a simple page, it doen't have any advertising, and it servers as a purpose about the mods history and what it is about.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it needs to be Notable. It needs to be Verifiable and it needs to have a Neutral point of view. Once it is those three things, it can be on wikipedia and I'll defend it any day. Until it is all of those three things, it needs to be deleted. There are clear policies that exist in order to ensure that wikipedia remains an important resource. Once people see that anything can get on here, the image if it will tarnish, and that is hard to replace. I'm sorry you feel differently, but thems the breaks. Protonk (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then what would you say make this article all of that? What would the Page require in specific terms to be up to the base.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Try the three links I gave first. Then try WP:TOYS for specific guidelines (although these are just proposed). But honestly, if there hasn't been a source that has covered City 17 in significant detail, you are probably our of luck. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only Source I can comment on, and that has gotten outside coverage on the mod, is that of Planet Phillip. Aside that, because the mod is not yet released, theres not much else that can be done, Planet Phillip at the moment is te only site that talks about City17 in detail, and later this week, we might have an interview, which might add to notability, but yet I'm not sure.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. this is awesome. Keep it coming. This is pure gold. Protonk (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue towards name calling, but I simply debate the fact of notability.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"And ten demerits for incompetent sock-puppetry. Also, people who suck at english but speak it as a primary language make me laugh....oops,"-protonk "Their statements are so incoherent as to be totally irrelevant."- Protonk you are in violation of the wiki civility code. so stash it.-ClannerJake

I'm sure WP:CANVASS and WP:SOCKPUPPET is in there somewhere. Maybe you can quote them for me too. Protonk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Wolkinson[edit]

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

Another contested prod for an election candidate, this time for the Michigan House of Representatives. Wikipedia is not an election hoarding: per WP:BIO#Politicians, just being a candidate does not confer notability. The references say only that he was active in student politics, has been a candidate before, and has a blog. Delete as not notable. JohnCD (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Cbrown1023 talk 16:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Martinez (disc jockey)[edit]

Fernando Martinez (disc jockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely a work of original research, and I'm not convinced of the subject's notability outside of the game. Marasmusine (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the following to this afd, since it seems all the GTA DJs will have similar notability (or lack of it):

Pepe (disc jockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adam First (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 14:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Hut 8.5 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Hein[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Only reference is a government site. Enigma message 17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cake (draughts player)[edit]

Cake (draughts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This does not appear to be a notable software. The article about its creator was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Fierz. Sandstein (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RoX Thresher[edit]

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

Character from a non-notable game, and therefore fails WP:N. PeterSymonds | talk 07:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sandstein (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autum Ashante[edit]

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

In so far as I can tell, this seven year old girl is notable for one event (WP:ONEEVENT) and does not actually meet any of our biographical guidelines. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TWOMDE[edit]

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

Non-notable. A part of a conference that hasn't happened yet. Weregerbil (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Feel free to merge. Flowerparty☀ 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Matter What (T.I. song)[edit]

No Matter What (T.I. song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC; it is a leaked track from T.I.'s upcoming album and not announced as a single, song has no notability DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 06:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

***I think you are confused...this is not even an album! Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Paper Trail. See WP:MUSIC#Songs. Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

***Comment Why not merge directly to Paper Trail itself? Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Cbrown1023 talk 16:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Laser Institute[edit]

European Laser Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This Institute (it's an association) has existed since 2003, yet has only 113 Google hits. I submit that it is not notable. Prod tag removed. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Cbrown1023 talk 16:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leesa Fogarty[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a fashion designer who attracted some press attention when she she insisted on using "normal-sized" women to model some of her swimwear. (And good for her.) None of the press reports included much biographical information, however, and its difficult to see how the article could be written as anything other than autobiography. Plus, it reads like a CV rather than an encyclopedia article. So, it did not surprise me that the article was started by Bluepedal (talk · contribs), which is also the name of one of her companies. Moreover, all of the substantive edits have come from IP addresses that have few or no edits outside of this article. This article could not be rewritten by a third party editor because there are insufficient reliable sources; thus it should be deleted. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* keep but I agree it needs a rewrite. User:Angelica Added after discussion was archived, signed by a fake signature. Added by User:90.192.183.57 erc talk/contribs 07:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Christopher Mahan (A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Lawson[edit]

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

This article is probably a hoax. There is no source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 User:Splash as an advertisement. Non-admin closure. ~ mazca talk 15:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign market research[edit]

Foreign market research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without comment or discussion. No context, no assertion of notability. Reads like a poor advertisement. Would need a complete rewrite to be useful; as it is, the article is practically incomprehensible. FrankTobia (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Despite recently being restored per a Deletion Review, the consensus here is clear, and the article has been deleted. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox[edit]

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

This is an article on an internal subject of Wikipedia (Isn't there a policy against that? Maybe not.). I don't find it to be notable enough outside of Wiki-projects for its own article. Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 05:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources assert that userbox is a type of badge, and if coverage of badges mentions userboxes, then it could be mentioned in the badge article and redirected to it, but currently is not a notable aspect of badges (or of Wikipedia), so there I cannot find an appropriate article for userbox to be redirected to. --Snigbrook (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A userbox is obviously a type of badge - that is a simple matter of language. It is a neologism though and so we should just redirect to a more normal word or phrase. Personal device might be better than badge. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Wakandas black panther mentioned, WP:UNDUE applies if mentioning it in the article. A redirect would be confusing as a search for "userbox" would redirect to an article that does not explain it. Also it is something specific to Wikipedia (and probably other wikis) and not a particularly notable aspect of them, and is rarely mentioned in coverage of badges, personal devices or wikis. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have the selfref template for such cases. See Self-reference. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any reliable sources to indicate real-world notability? Celarnor Talk to me 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton Page 56 and 171. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normal notability guideline ask for multiple independent reliable sources. Also, how is one arguing that the source is showing that the topic isn't an "internal subject of Wikipedia" when the source being provided is entitled "Wikipedia: The Missing Manual"? KTC (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"An important wiki term." - As in, a term only notable to A Wiki-editor (which there are few less of than wiki-readers who do not edit). And (in a strictly opinionated, non-proven matter I say this) it's not really that important on the Wikis. <humor>After all, how often do you hear "My good man, I just added the most magnanimous userbox to my userspace!"?</humor> I just don't know as userboxes are notable enough, is all. By the way, do you know anyplace online where I can read Wikipedia: The Missing Manual? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 00:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Cleveland Cavaliers. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whammer (mascot)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Whammer (mascot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Stub that has no chance of expansion. Brief mention of Whammer should be on mascot list page, not an entire page based on him. Waste of space. Page is not notable, as very few mascots are. GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (non-admin closure), with the hope, as per the editor's comment, this will not "jinx the servers and doom us all" Ecoleetage (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Hawks all-time roster[edit]

Waterloo Hawks all-time roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

You've got to be kidding me. This is a horrible list with no real sources. Waste of space. GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Waterloo Hawks aren't the Boston Celtics or Chicago Cubs. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list on the team page is just bare bones. This list seems like an attempt to make a nicer looking, more informative list of players. For the record, neither list is complete; both exclude the guys who played while the Hawks were in the NBL or NPBL. A true all-time roster would be much longer (and would more clearly justify the use of a separate article to present that information.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just have the nicer looking chart on the main Waterloo page. Makes no sense to have a random roster from the late 40s on two different pages. Wondering how many people will actually find the page under investigation right now. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't make a fuss over a merge, but that wouldn't require deletion of this article. We could just work out the details on an article talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 15:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these players would pass the primary notability criterion. Even if they had undistinguished pro careers, they were at least (in most cases) well-known players at the college level, and were discussed in newspaper articles in their day. Zagalejo^^^ 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverting an edit is not the same as deleting an article. AfD is not the place to resolve editing issues.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate issue, not involving this article. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT If only people would take 2-3 minutes and look at everything. The Waterloo roster is already on the Waterloo Hawks team page. Why is their a second page that is incomplete I might add for a team that has been defunct since the 1950s. The Cubs have been around 100+ years, you need a separate article to list thousands of players. You don't need one for 20-25 guys that Waterloo had in its small existence. Comparing the Cubs to the Waterloo Hawks is like comparing Nike to sneakers some guy makes in his garage. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you asking for deletion instead of being WP:BOLD and merging the information?--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because its not about a merger. The main page already has the roster, the second page is a duplicate. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

J. D. Myers[edit]

J. D. Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Highly promotional and non-neutral piece on a borderline but non-notable musician. A search turned up only false positives. He has not had any chart singles, and only one of his albums was on a major label (the article also indicates that said album was yanked before it even hit shelves). There also don't seem to be any reliable sources about him anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 moe anthropomorphism. If anyone wants to merge some content in they know where to find it. Wizardman 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moezilla[edit]

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

Not notable, one of thousands of fan created characters within Moe anthropomorphism. No reason to even merge it, nothing notable about it. Habanero-tan (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Discussion on merge can take place on the articles talk. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Valley Road[edit]

Arden Valley Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Road simply is not notable. It exists within Harriman State Park that minimal traffic travels everyday. Maybe you can briefly mention it on the Harriman State Park page, but that I don't think is necessary. GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comentario I agree, a page being considered pretty or well written aren't good reasons to keep something. I can make a good article on my cat, but should it stay because I have pretty pictures and some fancy wording. The road is barely notable, so should be deleted. In fact, there are no reassurance shields in the pictures on the page. So drivers don't even know they are on Arden Valley Road. Also, from my understanding, there are more of these types of roads within Harriman Park. How come one of a group of hidden roads was put into an article? If one was going to be done, it should make sense to have them all. I don't see this page's purpose. Other than it being "pretty", which it is, but again, that shouldn't fly as shown in the WP articles from Bellhalla above.-GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Trusilver (CSD A7). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Kay[edit]

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

I speedied this, but the user removed the speedy tag. The article fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Page has already been moved to the appropriate title.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Fraternal Organization - L'Association Fraternelle Canadienne[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Canadian Fraternal Organization - L'Association Fraternelle Canadienne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Goole search shows only 17 ghits [11]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Jmlk17 (G11: Blatant advertising). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charismatic Stations of the Cross[edit]

Charismatic Stations of the Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Spellcast (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webaganda[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 09:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cole guerriere[edit]

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

Unreferenced and unsourced and (almost unfortunately, in my opinion) appears to be a hoax. Article asserts that the subject was an influential opera singer, but returns no google hits - of any sort -, nor do the people or works attributed to the subject mentioned in the article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and I also did not find anything about this opera singer on google hits. --~SRS~ 03:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 17:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Vader's helmet[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Darth Vader's helmet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no sources that are independent of the subject listed that grant notability. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what I meant by that. =) SOrry.~SRS~ 04:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it confused me for a while too when people would just link to the GFDL as if it explained it. Wikipedia's license requires that the history of any contribution be maintained, so merging information and then deleting the article actually breaks this, though I agree that it's not very obvious - a merged article should just be redirected so that the contribution history is maintained. See WP:MAD for an explanation. Cheers ~ mazca talk 14:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busters on the Planet[edit]

Busters on the Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not enough information and completely unreferenced. It fails WP:MUSIC Razor flame 02:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Spellcast (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobosexual[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hobosexual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is about a neologism, with no references for its currency. nneonneo talk 02:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The second bit of your argument is addressed by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I recommend that you try adding this neoligism to urbandictionary.com. (Community editor (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
You are missing my point. Since we have at least one other article on the general topic of people who wear shabby clothing then a merger of this material would be sensible. There are other well-established words of this sort, such as tatterdemalion and so a simple move might suffice. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Readily available" is not a requirement in any encyclopedia that I know of. Stalinwasmydad (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Cbrown1023 talk 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tae kwon do 3d[edit]

Tae kwon do 3d (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Educational software. This article is written like a magazine review and would need a substantial rewrite to become an encyclopedia article. No notability asserted. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"W.O.W."[edit]

AfDs for this article:
"W.O.W." (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Stub about a song released two days ago by a redlink band. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as a G12 copyvio, then recreate as a redirect to the main article. Black Kite 23:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peta (cat)[edit]

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

I'm sort of complexed about this one. It seems made up, but I can't quite nominate it for SD. The footnote is messed up also. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 01:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was monitoring Special:Newpages when I came across this. However, It has been a day, and the article hasn't changed much. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What confuses the issue for me is that I can't quite make out whether this is someone's pet. Having a cat at 10 Downing Street sounds like one of those traditions (like the ravens at the Tower of London) of which the British seem fond, and the article on Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office says that the cats are actually civil servants. I can't be sure of that, though, and I don't know whether any of that makes these cats notable. Incidentally, if this article is deleted, I recommend also deleting Wilberforce (cat), Sybil (cat), and (the much better-sourced article) Humphrey (cat), whose notability comes from the same position. AnturiaethwrTalk 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was monitoring Special:Newpages when I came across this. However, It has been a day, and the article hasn't changed much. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not- you bit the creator. They haven't been back since. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit harsh to say you necessarily scared them off, but they indeed haven't made any more edits. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to Capacity utilization. I've done the redirect; someone more knowledgeable may merge the content in. Black Kite 00:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclical overcapacity[edit]

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

- Nothing links to it; orphan tag has been on the page since 7/2006 - Article itself is ostensibly a definition, but no cites and not especially well written (seems more like a very short essay) - page has been vandalized for two months but nobody noticed

(found it while working on disambiguating links to capitalist)  Frank  |  talk  19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Singularity 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black-Africans in Australia[edit]

Black-Africans in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

undefined term as stated by the article, WP:SYNTH a conglomerate of information to advertise http://www.africanoz.com.au. and a POV Fork of African Australian. Previous incarnations of the article were at Black Australians, Afro Australians Of African Descent Gnangarra 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment merge what?, with the exception of African Americans were stationed in Australia as US soldiers and sailors during the Second World War and Vietnam War, allowing opportunties for then predominantly white Australia to come in contact with a new and different ethnic group[3] all other sourced material is in the article. The only other information not covered is the unsourced WP:SYNTH There is no clear definition of what constitutes being an "African Australian" (or "Afro-Australian"). Along with indigenous Africans who were born in Africa, the term could encompass people as disparate as Caribbean British, African Americans or Cape Malays who with an African upbringing or family background have chosen Australia as their new home. The Australian Bureau of Statistics records people according to their birthplace and their self-described ancestry, although aggregated data for Africa is split between "Sub-Saharan" and "North Africa and the Middle East". Gnangarra 04:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CryptoHeaven[edit]

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

Not verifiable: the only third-party reference is a promotion piece from a TV show. The article is written like an advert and has not improved at all since November 2007. -- intgr [talk] 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 15 results in G-scholar and Gbooks is not significant, and look at the results they all are just references to a commercial website http://www.cryptoheaven.com which is what the article is about. The company itself is insignificant however they may use significant encryption techniques in which case an article on that would be notable wherein they might be mentioned. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Nakon 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Schnoebelen[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: I previously stubbed this article because of BLP concerns. It was later PRODded by another editor, but this was removed with the addition of some external links which don't look entirely convincing. Therefore, I have brought it here - I have no opinion. Black Kite 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RucasHost, I don't think its our concern about his checkered past you mention, its more our concern that he actually did the things he says he did. No one other than his own people confirm it and it's extremely unlikely at best. Hooper (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is being used as an expert in a couple documentaries of the conspiracy genre that I am aware of, namely the anti-masonic Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings and the anti-Mormon documentary The God Makers. __meco (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Two organizations which he works for or has worked for, and Chick Publications is hardly reliable. Hooper (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 both. Singularity 02:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue-driven entrepreneurship[edit]

Issue-driven entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

My prod tag was removed without addressing the underlying issue, so I'm bringing this article to the community. Essentially, 100% original research -- note that the article's creator indicated in an earlier revision that he had copyrighted both the article's title and the underlying concept. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominated the following related pages because the same author is apparently bent on advertising his website without any notability or reliable sources.
Enviu (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 and redirect to Middle-earth#History for the time being; if there is a better target (per Dhartung for example), please feel free to change that. Black Kite 00:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnless Day[edit]

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

This article has no notability established through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of a small aspect of the plot of the last book in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. As such, it should not have its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 A7 by Fuhghettaboutit , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darkest Shade Of Red[edit]

Darkest Shade Of Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, speedy removed by articles creator without development of article Richhoncho (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Gwernol 13:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just another katch 22[edit]

Just another katch 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a recreated page. This article has been speedied, prodded (both removed), still no claim of notability Richhoncho (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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