Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 21

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< April 20 April 22 >

Purge server cache

April 21

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy Things

edit

Take a look at this Australasian Furry community here. Have a look at the plethora of different Furry art/comic/fiction sites they host. One of these, is the webcomic Fuzzy Things, seen here. The entire furry.org.au domain returns an Alexa ranking of 300,000, maybe it's a notable furry community that's a different discussion, but is a one site out of the scores that are hosted there particularly notable? I don't think so, I don't think it is any more notable than any of the other sites hosted on that Furry community, and they aren't. - Hahnchen 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fragile Gravity

edit

A webcomic, which can be found here at Unseen Studios LLC. It's Alexa rank comes back at over 1.5 million and neither their Livejournal nor forums are particularly active. The article claims that a book has been published, and gives an ISBN number which I can't seem to trace. However, there is a link to their book on the website, which you can only buy direct, and looks self published. This doesn't seem to be notable. - Hahnchen 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr B B Sinha

edit

Non-notable doctor. Pugs Malone 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims need to be verifiable. Where's a source?Keppa 04:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy keep. The nomination has zero basis in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and even a modicum of research reveals, as pointed out below (and indeed as pointed out in the article), that there is no shortage of sources upon this subject. I also caution 207.62.186.233 (talk · contribs) to refrain from personal attacks against other editors, such as exemplified below, and also to read our policies on Wikipedia not being a soapbox and the Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia is not here to promote the personal viewpoints of its editors. It's an encyclopaedia. If you want to argue a case for your personal views of the merits of this subject, please do so in an appropriate venue, such as an article published in a relevant scholarly journal, not here. Uncle G 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misandry

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as a bad nomination (no reason given) from a bad user (blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account). Turnstep 13:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soben Huon

edit

Delete! Delete! Delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletionista (talk • contribs) 0:44, April 21, 2006 (UTC)

Keep? How is this person notable? Delete! Delete! Delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletionista (talk • contribs) 1:21, 21 April 2006

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

The result of the debate was deletethissocalledlongestwordvanityspamcruftarticleoffthefaceofwikipedia. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lip­smackin­thirst­quenchin­acetastin­motivatin­good­buzzin­cool­talkin­high­walkin­fast­livin­ever­givin­cool­fizzin

edit

Just because it's a long advertising slogan doesn't mean it deserves an article. It will be a perma-stub and it can be mentioned in the Longest word in English article instead. Nobody will find this article anyway.--Zxcvbnm 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -lethe talk 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediation

edit

Was tagged for speedy, citing "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day," but I do not believe that is grounds for a speedy. I do, however, believe this should go. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Delete! Delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletionista (talk • contribs) 1:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 01:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary colours of disgracefulness

edit

Vanity, no useful purpose. Keppa 00:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge. SushiGeek 23:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto Pen Pal Service

edit

Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. The article makes no claim to notability; the website itself claims about 400 members. AOL homepage, so no Alexa data. A few web directories but no non-trivial coverage available on Google. [1] [2] [3] Melchoir 01:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 03:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Flory

edit

Possible hoax. No google hits Cvene64 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 03:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childless Mother

edit

Seems long advertising promotion for a book. No evidence provided that the book is especially notable or cited by a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Created by same editor who set up an apparantly spam article also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.PregnancyJourneysAfterLoss.com David Ruben Talk 01:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of said book and host of said website. Not enough attention is paid to the hundreds of thousands of women around the globe who consider themselves mothers but who are childless due to miscarriage and stillbirth. The book is in review with notables in the field of pregnancy loss through PLIDA, A Place to Remember, The Centering Corporation and has been endorsed by leaders in the field of pregnancy loss and pregnancy after loss. I don't consider the topic of being a childless mother SPAM, and I would venture any mother who held her stillborn child in her arms wouldn't either. - Amy L. Abbey, editor
That's a red herring and you know it - appealing to people's sense of pity has nothing to do with the notability of an article. If you feel it is notable, write an article, don't just copy and paste a section of the book. Tokakeke 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These edits are mostly spam. What really irks me is that you're aware of the existence of those articles, and you claim to care about the issues surrounding them; yet all your edits are self-promotion. That is not what we need around here. Melchoir 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article from the book Journeys: Stories of Pregnancy After Loss. This article has not been printed elsewhere. I am not the owner or an employee of WovenWord Press. This book is NOT self-published. This article was drafted to enlighten individuals about the existence of childless mothers. Childless mothers exist. Are any of you childless mothers or fathers? Have you experienced this? It is a completely non-validating experience. Our stories have nothing to do with pity. Why don't you read it and decide for yourself? Childless Mother, the phrase, I defined in Wikitionary. My intent was not to SPAM, it was to raise awareness. Everyone starts somewhere, perhaps I picked the wrong place although I thought this was part of Wikipedia's mission. Amy L. Abbey
So revising this into an article more of an encyclopaedic format would be acceptable, is that what the consensus is? Are there any women here commenting on this? I don't want to be adversarial, my goal is to increase awareness about the every-growing cohort of childless mothers (not childless women by choice) Elovesme99
In terms of article style, that is closer (vs just quoting), but one has to cite a reliable external source. As an editor, that source can not include ones own work. So if subject is covered by a notable book or newspaper article, then the topic gains notability and there are sources to cite as giving the views that are then sumarised in the encyclopaedia. As well as the situation needing to be described elsewhere, so does the specific term 'childless mother' (vs 'bereaved parents' which I agree is not quite what you are referring to). Slightly off-topic, but indicating the need to cite a source for usage, are there not 'Childless Fathers' too, so unless the term is specifically defined and in common use would 'Childless parents' be an alternative heading ? David Ruben Talk 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does a book get to be notable by Wiki definition? Childless mothers and childless fathers have different experiences. As a mother, I can only write from a woman's perspective. Childless mother, the phrase comes up sporadically on Internet-searches, and is very recently being used. Elovesme99

That may be so, but you're inferring the term is notable, not the book. If the term is your main intent to write about, explain :it on Wiktionary. It should not even be on Wikipedia unless the term has some notability that isn't just it simply being a
term. As for the book, there are specific guidelines on when a book merits its own article. "Nonetheless there is no dictum against :any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable. Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a :no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to :on-line or press-published reviews of the book." Also, see :WP:NINAD. Tokakeke 22:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 03:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Empire at War Tactics

edit

Wikipedia is not a game manual/tactics manual. Even if it were, there is no content on this page. Purpose better served by linking to something like GameFAQs' page on EaW FAQs. Tokakeke 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I made the tactics page. My reason was because I normally use Wiki for a whole lot of stuff, and that it would be good to really have some stuff all in one bunch, not to go to some other place to get this tactics and other. Anyway a lot of those gaming sites need a subscription. Who's gonna pay $10 or more just to see a little guide or some info on the units? Anyway, I'm still rather new to Wiki, and I value your opinion. Let's discuss some more. RelentlessRouge 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your good-faith editing, and it's exactly what we need here. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while it'd be nice to have a general area of information, Wikipedia isn't everything. That's why we have Wookieepedia, Wiktionary, etc. GameFAQs is free, and has plenty of guides. IGN is mostly free, unless you want to see a video guide or something. Tokakeke 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Thnx. I'll think about it. Let's keep in touch. I've been surfing around the Net 4 EaW tactics, and couldn't find an iota... hmm. Interesting. Let's keep in touch. Tell me other reasons why. Thnx a lot. RelentlessRouge 01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My First Thomas & Friends

edit

This should be deleted as per WP:NN. It's mostly just an unpleasantly long list of each different variety of doll... Plus, “...who discontinued making them several years ago” and “as new models haven't been seen for almost three years now”. Perhaps a merge with Tomy, the US company which produced them? The UK company Golden Bear Toys doesn't seem to have an article. --Valermos 01:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Games Association

edit

There is no assertion of notability in this article. They're just some group that tries to make sports popular. This is written like an ad and a google search gets 193 hits. [4] A Clown in the Dark 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire at War Space Skirmish Tactics

edit

Its parent article is Star Wars: Empire at War Tactics, also up for AfD here. As with this that article, this should go as WP:NOT a how to guide. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page_printer

edit

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article is little more than a dictionary definition and has no promise of expansion.--Wikiwriter706 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If deleted, I suggest it redirect to Computer printer.--Wikiwriter706 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe the article would be best reverted to its pre-AfD state [6] and then transwikied to wiktionary.--Wikiwriter706 23:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it was a little longer, it might warrant a merge. Tokakeke 01:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Almost every consumer printer is a page printer. There is no reason to make this distinction. --Valermos 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think the subject may merit an article. For example, modern page printers need to be able to hold at least one page's worth of data in memory, which means they must come equipped with RAM, unlike, say, an older daisy wheel or inkjet printer where the paper is fed through by "teeth" (although many of these models, of course, do have memory). How did the older, huge, floor-standing page printers work? Frankly, I don't know. I don't really want to write it, but I think there's an article here. --Hyperbole 02:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Old line printers printed an entire line at a time and so had a buffer that was as big as a single line (e.g., 80 or 132 bytes). They weren't "page printers". Page printers really only arrived on the scene with the arrival of Xerographic techniques ("laser printers", more-or-less).
Atlant 12:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge with Teletype. As Hyperbole notes, there might be a good article here struggling to get out, and it would make a nice bridge between Teletype and Computer printer. Crypticfirefly 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clairification, because there seems to be some confusion here. There seems to be a difference between a "page printer" in the teletype context and a "page printer" in the computer printer context. I was assuming this article was about teletype printers because when I looked at it, it refered to the Morton & Krum teletype patent and had references to teletype articles. Teletype printers of course were the ancestors of computer printers. So my assumption was that the article would be about the interesting if somewhat obscure topic of teletype page printers. Hope this helps. Crypticfirefly 03:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to computer printer or another relevant article. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is completely disjointed. It originally was an article about laser and inkjet printers which wait for an entire page to be rendered before printing. Then someone added a bunch of teletype stuff which is a complete contradiction in terms as teletype machines print every character as it is recieved, and the used rolls of paper instead of sheets of paper. Bige1977 05:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above - a mess and unnecessary. Eusebeus 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Based on arguments given by those in favour of the deep six, it is rather apparent that some of them never even bothered to read the content of the cited references. Folajimi 12:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that there were no cited references when the article was nominated and that they have all been added during the course of this debate. The comments made by people who "never even bothered to read the content of the cited references" were probably made before there were such references. Major additions have been made to the article.
    • P.S. To those who glibly remark that the entry is "a mess", you should read up on the deletion policy for Wikipedia. According to that document, your argument is baseless. (Then again, such users contribute little or nothing in the way of original content to the project, but are always at the ready to condemn/destroy other people's work...) Folajimi 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • With your addition of teletype material, the article now states that computer page printers were invented circa 1900, and patented in 1924. Considering that electronic computers weren't even in existance at the time makes the whole article is now very confusing. The teletype information belongs in Teleprinter. Bige1977 18:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You make a valid point regarding the "computer printer" terminology. Considering that the printer in question was intended for use with telegraph equipment, the term should be de-linked, and the 'computer' prefix should be dropped.
As for the teletype information, notice that they are included under "References" — this means that the information used in the article was drawn from those sources. From what I gather, it is good practice to cite sources used in the construction of articles; if for no other reason than to avoid charges of plagiarism. Sources used in the entry are chosen based on content, not titles. Folajimi 10:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article is a whole mess. --Terence Ong 13:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP I agree that this this has the potential to become a useful article. many great articles start out as stubs...lets let the wiki work.
now that the specific teletype meaning has been clarified, any slight doubts I may have had are gone. And now, knowing that this is really not about computer printers, it seems pretty much impossible to make a case for merging. Interestingstuffadder 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingstuffadder 14:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep the cleaned-up version. Good work, everyone. Turnstep 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Griggs Havey

edit

This page is self promotion and spam and has no business in an encyclopedia.--Joe Jklin 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Nationalparks 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vanity, ad. Eron 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Make that Keep, the rewrite is good and the subject is notable. Eron 12:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: has a page, and supposedly Havey has sold more books than . There are also 74,300 Google results to her name. -- Zanimum 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
other author's page looks like a Wikipedia page. If Julia's page were formatted and wikified, and less like an ad, I might be inclined to change my vote. Right now it reads as vanity, self promotion, and advertising. Nationalparks 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nationalparks but it should be an outside editor. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so. But Julia Havey could be considered a notable author ( I got 25,400 unique google hits).--Joe Jklin 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean she took the exclaimation point directly from her bio on ediets. Encyclopedias don't have ! marks. When the article is fixed, I will reconsider my vote. But as it is now, still delete. Nationalparks 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nationalparks. Tokakeke 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This edit where she says "Were you a tattletale with no friends in school or do you just enjoy making people's life miserable for no reason?" doesn't help her case, in my opinion. Nationalparks 03:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs major cleanup, but keep, combination of fairly popular books and media coverage means notability.-Polotet 03:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To argue my case, I simply saw a page for another author and did a listing for me. I didn't know all of your rules and within like 10 minutes Joe nominated me for banishment (sp?). I didn't intend to break your rules or do anything wrong, had never even heard of your site before. I thought it was cool and wanted to be part of it. Seems like a lot of fuss over something that really wasn't/isn't problematic. Not like I am trying to hurt people, I help women lose weight, empower their lives and get healthy. As for my rude comment to Joe, sorry, I am human. But jeez, within minutes he voted to have me banned, yes, to me it seemed a bit tattletale like and I knee jerked back to him. I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)
If you are willing to rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic fashion (less like an ad, etc.), I will be willing to change my vote to keep, but not the way it is. There is a difference between "banishment" and deleting an article you've written.Nationalparks 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited it, it seems pretty nuetral to me, I would welcome any suggestions and changes you have. I realize there is a difference, but since it is "me" who is being deleted, it does feel like being banished! Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)

Thank you all for helping me get the listing done correctly. A notable author, perhaps, but certainly not a wikified one--until now! I am a fast learner, again, thanks and I really do love the site, it is great what you are all doing here. Much respect, Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)

  • Delete This still looks like an advertisement. The book cover image seems far too promotional and, therefore, inappropriate. The sentence "She is currently a motivator at a diet-loss website, eDiets.com" should be deleted, as it misleadingly implies that the author is a consultant to the website when in fact they are the sole operator. The link to the author's commercial webpage also seems too promotional and should be deleted. This author made a rather inauspicious debut on Wikepedia by attempting to create a self-aggrandizing Wikipedia page (presumably for commercial purposes), adding commercial links to the Obesity page, deleting substantial amounts of content from the Juice Plus page, and by making a personal attack on one of the editors. Also, it is salient that the author’s entry was self-submitted, which runs counter to editorial policy 15:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as it is fairly likely she meets WP:BIO as an author. Page should be watched though to protect it from the creator.--Isotope23 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put the book cover there and totally do not mind if you take it off, that book is 3 years old! I am a consultant at eDiets.com, I don't even own stock in the publicly traded company much less the sole operator! That is not an accurate statement on which to base a delete decision. NOT correct. I am the Master Motivator at eDiets.com and DO NOT own that company. I own my own company that makes my LifeChanger program, which is not even available for purchase at eDiets.com! Julia Havey — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)

  • Keep, it may have started as vanity but other people have worked on it to bring it to an acceptable level. If Ms. Havey can resist the temptation to work on the article in the future and add linkspam to obesity-related articles, I see no reason why we can't keep it. I would encourage Ms. Havey to review Wikipedia policies and gain experience working on other articles. --AlexWCovington (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiho Tsunechika

edit

article makes no assertion of notability. If there were an article on every retainer had by every noble in history, wikipedia would explode ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 02:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say he's notable. A Clown in the Dark 02:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 03:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kama Craft

edit

All 57 Google results for this "religion" are either completely unrelated or Wikipedia mirrors. Article cites no sources, is pretty much all by one author, and says the religion is "shroud in secrecy" and "a youthful religion in its exposure to the public". Unreferenced template was applied in March and the author has not come forth with any references. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD A7. Royboycrashfan   18:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Era Wrestling

edit

Not notable organization. There is a New Era Wrestling but this doesn't seem to be it. Eron 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, which are for wrestlers associated with the above organization:

see also Quiz the Wrestler, Allen Curtis and others.
Reply Thank you, that was a transcription mistake on my part. The New Era Wrestling page listed names the wrestler as Prototype, but the actual page is under the individual's name. I've corrected the list. Eron 02:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. No Guru 19:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kajiwara Masakage

edit

another non notable japanese retainer. 54 google hits. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Google Test isn't very effective for sixteenth century figures. He strikes me as a notable and verifiable historical figure. --Hyperbole 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- WP:BIO states for deceased people: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?"....in this case it appears not.⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 02:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Swatjester. -- Kjkolb 08:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; notable enough for the Japanese Wikipedia ja:梶原政景, which has much stricter inclusion criteria than the English one these days. If we have individual articles for transient pop songs, I see no reason not to have them for verifiable historical figures. (Note that the article could beneficially be tweaked based on the Japanese one, though I'm not going to waste time doing that when the figure's notability is up in the air.) — Haeleth Talk 14:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:BIAS. Besides, he might appear in a manga some day. Smerdis of Tlön 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest of all possible keeps The man seems to not have been a "mover and shaker" in Japanese history, but instead was on the periphery of the action... It's a little like putting in an article about a minor Roman senator. Interesting, and perhaps encyclopedic, but who is really going to have a burning need to know about a retainer of the Ota clan, who seems to have had little impact on history? But as others have mentioned, if we can have the likes of Gaius Iulius Iullus whose only historical information is that he may have existed as a Roman Consul in 489 BC in Wikipedia, then why not have Kajiwara-dono? It does no real harm...Pat Payne 18:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual's notability is not established and cited in the article. He seems to have little more prominence than any other individual soldier of any army. --Strothra 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia needs more historical and multicultural depth. This article should stay, and relevant WikiProjects should be notified to clean it up. --AlexWCovington (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep it's not like we've got gigabites of Japanese history clogging up the big giant harddrive. He's remebered 400 years after his death, I somehow doubt that Paris Hilton will. Throw in a source, and I'll change my "vote" to Strong keep. --Eivindt@c 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the Japanese Wikipedia considers him a notable enough figure, he is notable enough for mine. Verifiable sources would be good but they can be added over time. The Google test should be used with care in relation to historical figures who existed well before the Internet. Capitalistroadster 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fg2 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Haeleth. MCB 04:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we know his name, if he's mentioned in the history books, then he's notable enough for me. Maybe with a little research we might even discover if he fought in any major battles or was involved in other major events. LordAmeth 10:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "The" history books? What history books? Individuals write history books and pick and choose individuals they consider to be notable. That subjective process does not make an individual notable. Individuals must be judged by specific standards regarding their notability. For certain works that list of criteria is different than in others. Wikipedia has its own standards and they must be judged by those standards in order to gain inclusion into Wikipedia.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.P.E.

edit

Article contains assertion of notability--"commercial success"--but there's no evidence of that notability. See WP:MUSIC for Wikipedia's criteria for bands. Chick Bowen 02:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, though someone should really take a crack at rewriting this one in a good way. --Cyde Weys 03:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckton

edit

Not only is this article almost assuredly incorrect (I've been using "fuckton" for a years before today), it seems like an attempt by a Slashdot user to claim notoriety via Wikipedia. At best, "fuckton" is a Wiktionary entry. FreelanceWizard 02:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. No Guru 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jinbo Ujiharu

edit

Does not meet WP:BIO "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?". Non notable retainer. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 02:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not all real people are notable. --Strothra 03:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good point. But, real people are more encyclopedia than fictitious people. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's not neccesarily true. Ficticious people may be, and often are, just as notable, and perhaps more notable, than most individuals. It's about the importance to society, culture, and other important aspects of humanity that people and objects are judged on their nobility. For instance, Santa Claus is a ficticious person but he is still more notable than most people. --Strothra 17:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Haeleth. MCB 04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BIAS comes into play when we talk about people from 500 years ago and a foreign culture. KWH 05:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a Comment - Swatjester, I see that the author, Darin Fidika asked you for an explanation on your talk page since you nom'd several articles for AfD right after that person created them. Rather than assume that these figures are NN just because you never heard of them, you might pay some respect to the author, since their contributions seem to indicate that they have an interest in this period and are adding a great amount of information to Wikipedia. In other words, talk to them about the notability instead of reflexively nominating for AfD, which might piss off a worthy contributor. KWH 05:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: "I think one of the core problems here is that the original nominator should have raised the issue on the talk page of the article!!! We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article." - Jimbo Wales[7]. Talk:Jinbo Ujiharu. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It does not seem that Swat submitted the AfD in any improper or hasty manner. He simply put an article up for deletion which failed to meet the standards of Wikipedia. He cites his reason in his deletion vote. There's really no reason why he has to give any further explanation. --Strothra 18:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what "the latter" means within the article, so it's a bit odd. Also, I fully understand the disappointment that this person doesn't have the encyclocognointellectual significance of, say, anything here or here. And the article should be retitled, with macron. (Granted that WP uses the ghastly Hepburn romanization system, a lot of its articles need to be retitled.) After that, keep. -- Hoary 08:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC) PS This person certainly existed, but unless he can be shown to be notable in some way, merge the article somewhere. -- Hoary 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we know his name, if he's mentioned in the history books, then he's notable enough for me. Maybe with a little research we might even discover if he fought in any major battles or was involved in other major events. LordAmeth 10:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The "he's more notable than fictitious people" thing is nothing but a red herring. The fact is, this guy gets one hit on Google, and from a questionable site that doesn't cite its primary sources. For all we know, he could be totally fictitious himself. If he is real, he fails WP:BIO and every other notability guideline spectacularly. If you think other people discussed on Wikipedia are non-notable, nominate those articles for deletion rather than disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 14:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Precisely why Google should not be used to establish notability but rather the article itself with full citations. --Strothra 01:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Google isn't being used to establish notability. The guidelines at WP:BIO are being used--see the nomination above. I am pointing out that he only gets one Google hit to further illustrate his lack of notability as well as draw attention to the giant steaming red herring in the middle of this AfD. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 14:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I take your point about lack of an effort to establish notability. However, please reread (read?) my point above about Google hits. You've spelled his name in an unusual way: spelled conventionally, it gets a lot more hits. -- Hoary 15:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was replying to Strorthra there, not you. I didn't reply to your comment as I'm having trouble understanding you. I'm not "spelling his name in an unusual way." I am pasting it from the title of the article, which, unless I'm mistaken, is a standard Japanese-English transliteration using the Hepburn system. What you seem to be trying to say is that he gets more (but still very few) hits with his name spelled out in Japanese. I'm not disputing that--you won't find notable historical figures from Japan who get one unique hit for their transliterated names. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 17:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm humbled by my new awareness of how poorly I manage to express myself. Yes, I meant that he gets more hits when his name is written in Japanese script. As of a few seconds ago, 195 hits. A smallish number, to be sure, but then again he's not a character in a TV show, let alone a character in a computer game, so the blogging masses are unlikely to be interested. -- Hoary 07:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Once again, Google cannot be used here to illustrate, establish, etc nobility or lack thereof. You are talking about an individual who lived too long ago and in a different society. That does not mean that the individual is not notable to that society or culture. More than likely, notability on this individual will probably have to come from written textual references which is why my delete vote stands until that may be given. English Google is more likely to bring back nothing but contemporary pop-culture references or specific holdings at American/Brit museums and archives. --Strothra 13:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Butler

edit

To be honest, I'm not buying the claim in the article. I really don't believe there's a sport called "Pez eating," and a google search on this fellow (including "Conor Butler" "pez") turns up nothing that seems relevant. This looks like a vanity page to me, but I'm not 100% positive -- thus is why I'm nominating it for AFD and not just sticking a CSD A7 notice on it. FreelanceWizard 02:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity. Nationalparks 20:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Martin

edit

Hoax—or just plain nonsense? Parts are obviously cribbed from Himura Kenshin; I'm not sure if there is an actual person hidden behind that, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, you might want to get Eruditology while you're at it. Given that one of the first lines of that article is "No one, except for Matthew Martin, knows exactly how the universe began," one might think it's perhaps a bit, how shall we say, "totally nuts." :) --FreelanceWizard 03:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done; good catch on that one! Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Sheffield

edit

A teacher at a high school. Does this sound notable to you, folks? WhisperToMe 02:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroadster 04:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 19:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist law

edit

Delete. Article has changed much since first nomination, but not in a satisfactory way. Furthermore there is absolutely no discourse on anarchist law to be found anywhere (like at [11]) Intangible 03:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Almost every relevant google hit I found was a WP mirror, which strongly suggests original research, neologism, etc. Seems like anything said here can and should be covered in Anarchism. dbtfztalk 04:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anarchism is already sizeable and takes a far broader view; there's really nowhere to merge this material. Vashti 11:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Delete as per vashti. as per rehpotsirhc...I didn't actually look at the external links. --Strothra 20:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Besides having an oxymoron for a title, this article is 100% WP:OR. None of the external links seem to have anything to do with the subject unless you take the article's rather novel interpretation of them into account. Unencyclopedic. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk
  • Delete. The term is as much a contradiction as "anarchist government". It could probably be left as a redirect to natural law, which is the term used by those few anarchists who do use the word "law". Virtually no one uses the term "anarchist law", and over 90% of the google results when searching for the term are related to Wikipedia. In some ways it's also original research of a topic that really doesn't exist. Sarge Baldy 17:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some adherents of anarcho-capitalism have a profound belief in natural law. Intangible 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above, a redir to Natural Law or a disambig would be better.--digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 03:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eruditology

edit

Nonsensical fake religion, possibly connected with Matthew Martin (which is also up for deletion). Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next Michael Jordan

edit

Delete - This article has no references/sources, is very editorially conceived, and has scant encyclopedic value. That's my vote. Downwards 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a speedy Jaranda wat's sup 20:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Project

edit

Article is a copyright violation cut and pasted from an unsigned band's MySpace page, see [12]. Three Yahoo! hits, including Wikipedia, when searching for "The Last Project" and lead singer "Andrew Ferguson" [13]. No CDs per search on Amazon.com. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Ataricodfish 03:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete at author's request. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International American Bar Associations

edit

This "article" is a collection of a whopping two external links. Brittanica, assume the position! Appropriate Username 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Keep it, but try to order the text. I think is useful. Sandonar
Wikipedia is not Google. The article subject matter is non encyclopedic. Appropriate Username 04:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Hi, I am the author, and a lawstudent. I am improving it now. Many large articles start out as small insignifgant ones like this one. Deleting an entry simply because it is small is rather shortsided. Why not get on Google and add more International American Bar Associations instead of spending your time arguing about deleting other people's work. Travb 04:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is totally and shockingly out of line; it shows a complete inability to grasp what WP is about and how it works, which in turns raises serious questions about the author's ability to participate. In no way does any comment made here by AU warrant this type of response. Delete this, redirect, and have editor go read WP:AGF, WP:Civility and WP:NPA. WRT Hyperbole's suggestion, the old delete and merge doesn't actually exist, right? Eusebeus 11:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tashbann Online

edit

Was tagged prod, with reason "zero Google hits- thus, non-notable (and probably made-up)." And that's for game which is online...


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

The result of the debate was redirect to List of licensed Monopoly game boards. -- No Guru 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monopoly Games

edit

Page is entirely redundant. There's a formatted text list on the page Monopoly (game) and a second list exclusively to the Hasbro-licensed Monopoly-branded games at List of licensed Monopoly game boards with photographic references. --JohnDBuell 04:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was noconsensustohavethisarticledeleted. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun

edit

Relevant Policy

Just because this is a popular phrase/slogan doesnt mean it needs a article. It's been a merge/redirect candidate before and moved to various McDonalds articles, yet various authors have moved it back here. If there are any solutions, ie re-directing or transwiki it somewhere, then I won't stand in the way. NO VOTE for now --Arnzy (Talk) 04:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Nevermind. I was wrong, no tomatos. Redirect also. Keppa 03:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom harper

edit

Non-notable. Article was prodded and prod removed. -- RHaworth 04:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobility device

edit

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move to Wiktionary? Rmcii 04:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 20:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multipurpose, Repurposing and Repurpose

edit

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move/merge to Wiktionary? Rmcii 04:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Circuit

edit

Fails WP:WEB. 237 Google hits, no alexa data. Bige1977 04:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Firmin

edit

Delete vanity San Saba 04:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M.P.P

edit

It seems incredibly like a vanity club page to me. I put a speedy (CSD A7) notice on the page, which was then promptly deleted by an anonymous user, so I'm tossing it onto AFD. Google provides no relevant hits. FreelanceWizard 04:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by TKE.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Give Me Novacaine

edit

Talk page useless, the talk in the page is not involved with Give Me Novacaine. Weirdy Ain't have no user talk page you nitwit 05:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, per reasons given in debate. SushiGeek 08:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overpronator

edit

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move to Wiktionary? Rmcii 05:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley View Middle School

edit

Originally, I popped a proposed deletion notice on this article because it didn't even attempt to assert how this middle school is at all notable compared to any other middle school. I ran a google search on the school and didn't find anything particularly impressive about it besides the fact that it's a school. Thinking that I may have just been crazy in remembering that schools usually need to be particularly notable to make it into Wikipedia, and wondering if it was proper that my proposed deletion was shot down, I ran a search of past deletions and found that such articles usually end up having to go to AFD for a decision to be made. So, here we are, with this school article nominated for deletion on the grounds that it's barely a stub and not of encyclopedic notoriety. FreelanceWizard 05:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a school, ergo it's notable. Keep. --Gene_poole 05:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with merging the article into Snohomish School District. How many schools in the US do you think are named "Valley View Middle School"? Dozens at least, I would guess, as it's a rather generic name. Obviously this naming convention cannot be kept if we are to allow any grade school to have its own Wikipedia article. As it stands, the article contains nothing to suggest that this school is any different from any other one. Rishodi 07:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a lot. Let's see, using Google we have at least: Edina, Minnesota ([16]), Simi Valley, California ([17]), Pleasant Hill, California ([18]), Bloomington, Minnesota ([19]), Valley View, Ohio ([20]) and El Paso, Texas ([21]). That list is not exhaustive. The problem over naming is discussed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools). I agree that if kept as is, we will need to move this to Valley View Middle School (Snohomish, Washington) and leave a disambig here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep - Turnstep 14:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move to Wiktionary? Rmcii 05:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers Media - A Glasgow Rangers Fansite

edit

DELETE, non-notable San Saba 05:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Car

edit

Non notable 'con artist' and/or hacker according to Google. Speculative. contributing editor removed prod. Delete. Rockpocket 05:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both pages as copyvio, with no redirect per Mukdderat's point. Future non-copyvio versions are encouraged and should not have this AFD held against them. Turnstep 14:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security Disability Insurance

edit

Afd - dupe of Social_security_disability_insurance Rmcii 05:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midx

edit

Not notable, see WP:WEB. Rishodi 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Tango

edit

Self promoting not notable tango group from Poland; no recorded album. Mariano(t/c) 06:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Bray

edit

non notable teacher. WP:BIO, professor test, WP:NOT etc ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 06:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Peacocks

edit

This sort of page surely does not belong in Wikipedia. The Peacocks is a completely generic and run of the mill shopping centre. If anyone is really interested they can follow links to local websites from the Woking page Al17 07:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Vail

edit

This is a nn bio entered without his authorization. He was erroneously listed as having contributed to The 1 Second Film project. A project which has over 3800 other minor contributors and for which virtually any individual in the world can purchase a production credit for a minimum of $1.00 --Hetar 07:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Sigma Phi

edit

Non-notable sorority. (Founding date would be useful in determining notability, but is obviously false in the article) Tangotango 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please go to the Zeta Sigma Phi Website to determine the founding date (which you say is obviously false). You can also Contact the University of Southern California's Office of Greek Life to discuss the founding of this sorority and the subsequent Multicultural Greek Council.

Please do you're research before you go tagging articles. . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamarastern (talk • contribs) 09:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Sorority with no national presence. IMO, founding date is irrelevent because it falls below my threshold for organiations or clubs since it is comparable to a local chapter of a national sorority.--Isotope23 16:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The USC Chapter of Zeta Sigma Phi is the first chpater of the soon to be expanded organization. The sorority does have a national board. IMO you people should get a life or at least do some research. This sorority is very prominent on USC's campus, has been featured on MTV's "Sorority Life" and is in the process of expanding to other schools in the Southern California area. What is "a threshold for an organization or club?" An organization or club does not have to be a national organization to be a club. It is not a non entity at USC. It is the trademarked organization holding the name Zeta Sigma Phi. Again I question as to why the other non trademarked Zeta group's page was not deleted. I also question why two grown men care? Are you paying something to keep this page around on the interent? NO! Get a life outside of wikipedia and stop attacking pages that may be relevant to a group of people that doesn't include you're selves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.89.11 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If your argument is that this will someday be an important sorority in the future, thus this article should be kept now, I direct you to WP:NOT's crystal ball clause (and while you're at it you could try reading WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). The only thing that matters is the relevance of Zeta Sigma Phi today. If it becomes a national sorority at some point in the future, then it would be wholly appropriate to add the national organization (though not individual chapters) at that time. As far as I'm concerned, a sorority (or fraternity... or any club for that matter) that is simply a local organization at one college does not have the appropriate level of relevance to merit an article on wikipedia unless there are some extinuating circumstances. You should also try making logical arguments as to the relevance of this organization. Telling people to "Get a life outside of wikipedia and stop attacking pages that may be relevant to a group of people that doesn't include you're selves" (sic) is strangely enough not persuading me to change my opinion.--Isotope23 20:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To will- I didn't intend on deleting the "articles for deletion" section. Why aren't you in school anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamarastern (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • This article should be deleted. Zeta Sigma Phi was founded at NYU years before this sorority was founded by stealing trademarked letters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stacylynnaustin (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

to Isotope23- I don't believe in changing peoples minds. You will believe in what you will want to believe. Very few people can be convinced otherwise. The fact that you don't have anything better to do outside this website is a sidenote. Zeta Sigma Phi is a national sorority, but It has only one chapter. The possibiliy of keeping the organization local to USC has been discussed, however the national board has never been dismantled. The national board deals with things outside the scope of the happenings of the group and is its own seperate entity. Again I urge you to do some research. You're whole argument is that Zeta is not a national sorority but it is which shows you are ignorant to the argument and therefore should not be commenting on it. You are refering to the lack of national presense as far as numbers of organizations across the country. What in you're esteemed opinion, constitutes the number of organizations a group must have before it deserves its bit of cyberspace? 15, 20? This is a usless argument. to Stacylynnaustin- Copyright you're Letters. If you're organizations letters were copyrighted, there wouldn't be another Zeta Sigma Phi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamarastern (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Something more than 1 chapter with 15-20 members. based on the criteria you want applied to your soriority pretty much any club on any college campus with over 10 members deserves a wikipedia article as long as they call themselves "national" and I simply disagree. Generally speaking, local chapters of national organizations get deleted. Saying that somehow a "national sorority" with one chapter is different than the local chapter of a national sorority is semantics. You can call yourself a "national sorority", but until you have an actual presence to back that up, you are "national" in name only. Feel free to disagree with me, but if you "don't believe in changing peoples minds" then it is sort of pointless to do so. On a side note, Stacylynnaustin's group did try to trademark their letters. I found that out when I did a little research before I opined deletion.--Isotope23 14:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Sigma Phi is a national sorority. It has a national board with Almni and non alumni members completly seperate from the college group. I'm not just calling it a national sorority, it has an actual National board, something i'm guessing you're "research" didn't turn up. I don't see why National groups with limited individual chapters don't deserve a wikipedia page. You aren't paying for the service, so I don't see why you would be against it personally. . its not attacking anyone and its only non notable to you because you are a non sorority member in detroit. Further Stacylynnaustin's group didn't try hard enough to trademark the letters. They weren't trademarked for the almost 10 years before the USC group came into existance, leading our founders to believe they were a local non expanding chapter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamarastern (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Tell you what- I've confered with some of my sisters and we have decided wikipedia is not a reliable enough source to argue over. It is not a encyclopedia you can quote as made obvious by that fact that a bunch of yahoo's with no connection or real knowledge of the group can edit the groups information- thus making it untrue information. I am removing the entry. Please do not repost it to continue you're discussion.

Tamarastern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.67.141 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Tamarastern/128.125.67.141, Wikipedia would be pretty reliable if people would actually follow the rules of citing sources and writing from a neutral point of view. Some articles have achieved this, so it's not entirely impossible for Wikipedia to be a reliable encyclopedic (i.e., secondary/tertiary) source. Also, you should bear in mind that it's generally not recommended that you write about yourself, or a group you are involved in, unless you can write from said neural point of view. And just because people who are not involved with a group can edit an article does not necessarily mean it will become inaccurate, or untrue - more often the problem is people inserting their own speculations and biases into the articles. Please note that you cannot delete this article as you are not the only author, and the article has a number of other edits. If you do want to have it deleted, please vote delete in this AfD discussion. Thank you. -- Tangotango 08:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MovieMistakes

edit

Reasons? well there are a bunch: Advertisement, WP:VAIN, WP:WEB, and it is also very poorly written. Delete Geedubber 08:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. SushiGeek 08:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Knowles

edit

Tagged as an A7 candidate, but being a goalkeeper for the League 1 team Gillingham does seem to be an assertion of notability. Players in the Premier League are easy keepers, but I am not sure about players further down in the league system. I think this deserves discussion so I'm bringing it here and abstaining from voting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say Keep. Although he is currently out on loan to an Isthmian League club, there are other players at that level who have their own entry, also he may yet play for the Gills ChrisTheDude 08:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organization he's a part of seems to be highly notable within countries that regularly follow English football (soccer :-P), and he's sufficiently notable to merit a short article about him. However, taking a page from the Farscape: Dominar Bishan AfD, an article "List of Gillingham players" or some such, with a short bio for each and a link to the section on Danny Knowles would be a very good solution here.Captainktainer 19:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the author of the article (or rather stub) I say keep, however I must admit, the information in the stub is pretty much all the information there is available on him at present. I think that the information on Danny Knowles should be kept, whether it requires its own section or whether we should follow Captainkrainer's solution is up to you. GillsMan 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's been announced today that he's not being kept on for next season. As I think it's extremely unlikely that he will go to another League club, I think the page can probably be deleted ChrisTheDude 11:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy. Tawker 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.HiddenCameras.TV

edit

Delete, advert, should likly be speedied. San Saba 08:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No way is this advertisement, this SHOULD stay. This is one of the largest shops in New York City and is pretty much a landmark. Its popularity exceeds that of X-10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.59.140 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was Moved to RfD by B.B. --blue520 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raimon pannikar

edit

False spelling B.B. 08:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Apr. 26, '06 [04:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Fives (drinking game)

edit

Uh, this is encyclopedic because? Take it down, and pass it around -- I mean, Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge with Dulwich College. SushiGeek 08:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dulwich College Boat Club

edit


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

The result of the debate was Delete - WP is not a crystal ball. Tawker 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pen Wars

edit

Apart from looking like a film made up in school one day this is pretty much all crystal ball stuff:

it was presumed to be done in June 2006, but this was to positive. It is re-calculated to be done in late 2006. It is estimated to be 3 hours when it is done, it is being considered to be cut into three movies instead of one, with approximately one hour each. It is also likely to be more heavily clipped then before,

I'm consequently nominating it for deletion; it can come back when it actually exists and meets notability criteria. Tonywalton  | Talk 09:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of significant archaeological discoveries

edit

Inherently POV: who says they are "significant"? Unsourced. Looks like Original research. If a legitimate list does have some status in academia then we need an article under that precise name - but I don't know what that would be, unless a journal has published some market research showing what academics in the field believe to be the top advances. Mais oui! 09:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information I note that the article was only recently Moved from List of famous archaeological discoveries - which says a lot. This is really a type of "celebrity"-spotting article, of no encycloaedic value. It has been hanging around the Wikipedia ether since January 2003, and yet it has gained no actual substance or weight since then, only unsourced additions to the list. I spotted this because its related category is up for deletion at CFD:
--Mais oui! 09:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion If the content of the article has any merit, in that the sites listed contributed to the development of archaeology, then referencing these sites from History of archaeology in context would be more useful (and delete this list article) - Viv Hamilton 13:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Curps due to mass vandalism by sockpuppet accounts. Just zis Guy you know? 11:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Strelchik

edit

Previously kept no consensus, but discussion on WP:AN/I indicates substantial sockpuppetry in the VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) mould. The subject is a failed political candidate whose only real claim to notability appears to be as a "founder member" of Free the Children, but this membership was not significant enought to be mentioned in the article for the group itself and there is no indication of how many such there are (and indeed no apparent citation for the claim). For the record I wanted to nominate this myself anyway but was put off by the recent second nom; had I realised at the time that it was a sockfest I'd have done so.

Relisting, then, for a (hopefully) clean debate. Just zis Guy you know? 09:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which turns out to be a forlorn hope, since the tag has already been removed from the article by one user and two sockpuppets, and this AfD blanked several times. Just zis Guy you know? 11:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge (already done) and delete, despite the fact that this is indeed a funny article title.

List of U.S. state muffins

edit

Merged into List of U.S. state foods --CapitalR 10:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water balloon

edit

Wikipedia is not a howto guide and this topic is too small to have it's own entry. The reference on Balloon should be enough. Nick Catalano contrib talk 10:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete - advert. Tawker 04:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Development

edit

Article on a web development company, which doesn't appear to meet our inclusion criteria, and the article reads like an advertisement. Was tagged to speedy delete, but I don't feel it meets CSD. Doesn't seem much point {{prod}}ing since there are frequent edits by the original creator. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge. SushiGeek 08:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PURE:FM

edit

Tagged as speedy as advertising, but may have merit so sent here. No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge and redirect to the home student body, as we usually do with student radio stations. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above; Heavily clean up as the current page is terrible vanity/advertising. The article deserves to exist (at least, as part of a larger article), but in its current state, you might as well just blank the page and start from scratch. -- Kicking222 16:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless someone coughs up a callsign or a decent case for notability. Rewrite either way. Haikupoet 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see the entry for Pure:FM kept in Wikipedia but edited to bring it in-line with the Wikipedia rules; it would be a shame to lose this web presence, but I can understand the reasons behind deletion. Best regards - Alex H (UPSU.net webteam).
    • If you're concerned about keeping the page then what I would suggest is finding out if there are either any notable alumni or an FCC license. If it's a part 15 campus station, it almost certainly isn't going to be notable enough for Wikipedia -- the exception would be something like WTBU at Boston University, which was Howard Stern's first radio gig. On the other hand, the general consensus has been to keep licensed stations even if they're in relatively small markets, so if you have a callsign you stand a much better chance. Haikupoet 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thankyou for that information Haikupoet. As I'm relatively new to this (but would consider it to be a shame if Pure:FM lost their entry at Wikipedia if it was at all avoidable), are there any other ways we could go about securing it's place? As an aside, I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but the station is a not-for-profit entity - the only site advert (at the time of writing at least) only makes a small contribution towards the station's overall maintenance costs - and as such stands to gain little or nothing in terms of revenue. Best regards - Alex H (UPSU.net webteam).
  • Re-write: no objection to having an article, but not this one. - Runcorn 22:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

edit

The person who emailed info-en informing us of the CopyVio has asked for the page to be put up for deletion also. They probably don't want to keep checking the article to protect their copyright. This is a comment, and not a vote - I'm simply going thru the deletion nomination procedures for them. Jeandré 11:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean out the history and make into a stub-sized article about a notable college. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History now shiny and pristine. Interestingly, I found a previous deleted version and a long history. It's a bit of a puzzle, but it's also hard to work out at what point the copyvio crept in so let's work frmo what we have to be on the safe side. Just zis Guy you know? 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually worked for the store that acted as their bookstore for a few years, so I might be able to track some information down. I'll put it on the to-do list. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

edit

Way too early for this page to exist. You can't compare a book with a film that hasn't even entered pre-production yet, and probably won't for at least another year. Maelwys 11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 20:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramyk

edit

It seem to be a trademared name of some sort. Lingered around in Wikipedia for too long. Dangherous 11:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiers (video games)

edit

In this unsourced article, it seems as though a common term (tier) is borrowed to create a subject. As it stands, it violates WP:NOR. PJM 11:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a merge into Top tier (fighting games), as long as that article is properly sourced. PJM 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Top tier (fighting games) should also be deleted as unsourced WP:NOR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin H. Freedman

edit

User:Martha Ramsey added the AfD tag to the article saying it's a well known hoax. I'm subst:ing and finishing the nomination to make sure. I have no comment as I don't feel like web searching. Optichan 20:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, first off it is a copyvio of the opening here: [24]. I've tagged it as such. The second problem here is verifiability based on reliable sources. The book referenced exists [25], but whether or not is was actually authored by "Benjamin H. Freedman" is subject to debate. Basically the "Benjamin H. Freedman" story is printed and reprinted by the usual anti-Zionist crowd: Jew Watch, National Vanguard, and a bunch of other groups watching out for the Illuminati boogyman. His story is basically used as "proof" of the one thing these groups desperately want to believe: that Jesus of Nazareth was not of Jewish origin. None of these sources comes even close to WP:RS and all basically just reprint the text of his attributed book... no verifiable biographical information. But just for the sake of argument lets pretend someone can prove Mr. Freedman did exist. He still doesn't meet WP:BIO as an author. No evidence his book ever exceeded readership of 5000. Pretty clear cut delete to me.--Isotope23 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached; please add new discussion below this notice. Proto||type 11:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Lance Mazmanian

edit
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual LRC

edit

Unremarkable webpage with an alexa ranking over 1,000,000. Prod removed by author. Delete. Grandmasterka 12:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Alexa ranking doesn't tell the whole story. The VLRC is a unique metasearch engine in that it only indexes information pages recommended by teachers, librarians and library and educational consortia world-wide. As such, it represents the collective wisdom of the educational/library community. The purpose of this one-of=a-kind search engine is to help serve as a guide to students for valid information for school research projects. You may deem it "unremarkable", I see it as a needed resource. - Dr. Michael Bell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.163.196 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Games featuring London

edit

listcruft Hirudo 12:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Green Day songs

edit

listcruft; their most important songs have their own article anyway Hirudo 12:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taunton, Massachusetts businesses

edit

wikipedia is not the yellow pages Hirudo 12:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yikes, where to start? Listcruft, Masscruft, a bunch of links alone, and pretty farkin' non-notable. RGTraynor 16:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and pretty much every sub-article linked there could have it's own AfD. I didn't check every single one, but there are alot that fall below WP:CORP from the looks of it.--Isotope23 19:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is a reference work, and things like this aren't always simple to compile from public databases. Best to leave it in the hands of locals. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my own comments on the discussion page. No other cities in Mass, much less the rest of the country or the world appear to have the honor of a page like this for them. Consider also that most of it is just a nice long list of red links. Unbelievably non-notable. Keeping this would invite someone to make an article of 'Names of people who live on my street'. 24.62.27.66 01:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and per list criteria at WP:NOT. See also: listcruft, redlinkcruft and cruftmagnet. Kappa really lets rip when he pulls up the current prods page, shame because it's otherwise a great system... Deizio 01:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid list; cited sources. Listcruft is not a criterion for deletion. Masscruft is not a criterion for deletion. Wikipedia asserts that it is not various things, but it does not assert that it is not the yellow pages. Fg2 01:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does assert that it is WP:NOT for mere collections of external links, internal links or Internet directories. That's policy. There is zero context here, except for a (likely POV) labelling of some businesses as "prominent". Deizio 02:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't think I would find a list of notable businesses founded in Taunton in the yellow pages. Kappa 01:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I'm a bit perplexed how a list full of businesses that fail WP:CORP has any value at all and could be considered "notable". By what criteria? Also, list is "selective"... it is a completely arbitrary set of businesses picked by the author. Where is the local McDonalds? Doesn't Tauton have a Walmart? Local restaurants? What is so damn special about these particular businesses?--Isotope23 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No kidding; neither has Jimbo Wales personally asserted that Wikipedia is not explicitly for a subjective listing of some business that might be notable in a small Massachusetts city. There are just times when common sense should prevail over rules lawyering. RGTraynor 13:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlameHawk

edit

Prod removed by someone without comment or change to article. Band in question appears to fail WP:MUSIC, is unsigned and hasn't released an album yet. Heycos 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 06:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril Merjanski

edit

A non-notable poet. Works do not appear to be very notable, and only about 70 Google hits on him, [26] a significant number being a news story about how he got caught up in a mob while out in public (he was apparently only mentioned because he was one of the witnesses who spoke with the reporter). Claimed notability in the article is not cited --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Consider my vote to be a Keep now in light of the evidence dug up by the dedicated researchers below. I would withdraw the entire nomination if not for the delete vote that still remains below. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - I originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, but the tag was contested (see Talk:Kiril_Merjanski) --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably a hoax and/or vanity. The article claims that "his works have been translated into English, French, Bosnian, Croatian, German and Swedish", but no library anywhere in the world seems to have a copy. Bucketsofg 14:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Keep following verification below. Bucketsofg 03:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain: Can we take some more time to attempt verification? Does this guy's name (or those of his works) transliterate in Bulgarian to something that might trigger a search on the various EuroGoogles? RGTraynor 16:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be real, in as much as a pub lic reading at a US library can be taken as an indication, but equally appears not to be at all notable. Just zis Guy you know? 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Library of Congress and Canadian Library have him as Kiril Merdzhanski. I think he is probably Кирил мерджански.--HJMG 19:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC) And Merdjanski!--HJMG 19:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted - the works correspond! Митът за Одисей в новата буколическа поезия, for example, is The Myth of Ulysses in the New Bucolic Poetry. Dlyons493 Talk
Comment Included in German volume of most significant post-war Bulgarian poets--HJMG 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be argumentative (and I admit I did probably nominate this article prematurely), but systematic bias as it applies to WP generally refers to the omission or slant of information in favor of Western interests. In this case, there simply was no citation in the article (originally). Though I agree those in less off locations have less access and ability to edit WP than those of us who are more fortunate, the author and editors of the article had just as much ability to cite as anyone editing any other WP article. The burden of evidence is on the author/editors of the article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I second AbsolutDan on his point, and would only want to add that having the name misspelled prevented an easy confirmation. In light of this, however, I wonder whether we shouldn't move the article to Kiril Merdzhanski and redirect the current entry there.
Yup, I was thinking about that and I've now been bold and done it. Dlyons493 Talk 18:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukor

edit

neologisms, this seems to be a company name among other random things. Lacking in evidence Dangherous 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Käsekopf

edit

I can fin Nothing of use in this page - check its history, and you'll see a big load of tosh. Delete Dangherous 13:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 20:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krypt

edit

"something as uncool or an indication that something sucked/sucks". Not for an encyclopedia Dangherous 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenden

edit

An awful disambig page. The word has a meaning in Dutch, see Wikt:kenden, but other bits seem a bit useless Dangherous 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keirebu

edit

Japanese term, wrong script Dangherous 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, does not fit Wiktionary criteria. Tawker 06:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamoke

edit

Borderline case for this I feel. A slang term with a fair bit of good search result. I don't know if you wish to keep this though Dangherous 13:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sybunt and lybunt

edit

Charity-ruft? Dangherous 12:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filewile

edit

Appears to be bandcruft. No references are given (the "footnotes" all refer to the band's own website). The language is POV throughout; the claims of significant following seem to be very exaggerated. I can find no sources that indicate any particular notability. — Haeleth Talk 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Was deleted after 5 days on prod, not sure what its doing on AfD. Tawker 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPD (band)

edit

Does not meet WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. This is was a contested prod submission Wikibofh(talk) 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rohn Padmore

edit


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruts hut

edit


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Geren Toomer

edit

Non-notable biography of a guy who played 1 minute in NCAA basketball last year. Entire article seems to be a copyright violation as well. Metros232 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales From Another Side

edit

Webcomic hosted on Deviant Art that's less than two months old and has just 20 strips. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated television series and films with LGBT themes

edit

Listcruft Will (E@) T 14:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issue of LGBT themes in animated series and films is a controversial issue, especially when the product is marketed to children. However, it is clear that it does exist. Browned.
  • Delete unsourced, contains many entries of a speculative nature (that don't meet WP:V), contains elements of WP:NOR, and it is listcruft to top it all off.--Isotope23 14:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the first entry: "In the episode titled Legends Of The Dark Knight, three children tell different Batman adventures, with one of them noting how he admires Batman for his "tight rubber armor." However, this boy is named Joel, and the entire scene is a dig on the Batman movies directed by Joel Schumacher." In other words, it's not an LGBT themed show, and it';s not an LGBT themed series (only a single episode). And it's unsourced. This is an unsourced, unverifiable, arbitrary list of arbitrary entertainment media meeting an arbitrary selection criterion interpeted arbitrarily in an apparent effort to present a particular point of view. It is also largely original research. Apart from that, and the fact that it is indiscriminate (aka listcruft), it is hardly crap at all. Just zis Guy you know? 15:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all said above. Grafikm_fr 15:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is about LGBT references in animated series and films, even if it few themes. It would seem that their is a tad bit of homphobia here. User:Browned. Each episode or theme is referenced with a link to the original show or film.
  • Delete per JzG. That is a offensive and inflammatory suggestion, as if only a gaybasher could possibly seek to apply Wikipedia rules and guidelines. For my part, this article nukes NPOV in such a comprehensive fashion as to be worthless as genuine information. It's rife with heavily-slanted inferences that a particular character/ep/series is "LGBT-themed" because a certain character is "often played up as if he were gay" or is "likely" or "possibly" gay, characters disguise themselves in women's clothing, even down to assertions that a character's gender is "unknown." The citation of Hercules as a LGBT-themed movie on the strength that one of the Greek gods wore lavender-colored sunglasses is priceless. RGTraynor 16:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Weber

edit

Tagged as an A7 speedy, but did appear to asser notability although the article is not written in a neutral manner. A Google check seems to indicate that this person has some real CD releases and won a Parent's Choice award. [27]. Not entirely certian over reliability of all the sources, and I'm not too inclined to research this now either. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete per CSD A7. Tawker 05:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yipes

edit

Non-notable bar band. Albums mentioned, but not seemingly available anywhere. No label information to remove doubt that these were privately produced. GWO 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I come up with only five unique G-hits (heavily directed to clear out the chaff). The lead hit [28] is from the band's front man way back when; it was around in the late Seventies/early Eighties, apparently. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These pages suggest the records came out in 1979 and 1980. [29] [30] Caution -- contains bad album cover art. You can buy the albums, but these appear to be self-released [31] -- GWO


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misfit Animations

edit

vanity page --Dunstan 14:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Clockwork Orange (computer game)

edit

Previously nominated for deletion here: [32] AfD resulted in no consensus. Primary problem is that this is not verifiable. Only source is for the supposed Atari 2600 version of the game and is comprised of one screenshot of a cartridge hosted on a geocities site. Even if you take that to be verifiable based on the screenshot, it can't really be considered a reliable source. The PC version information is completely unsourced. --Isotope23 15:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP, I have shown evidence of the Atari game from a source about as reliable as much things about video games. I know that I read an indepth article about the computer game in the 1990s.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Browned (talk • contribs)
    • Comment... ok, how is that evidence "as reliable as much things about video games"? where is the listing on Atari 2600 fansites? How about general videogame sites? One screenshot posted on geocities simply does not meet WP:V by a WP:RS. Furthermore, just saying that you read a indepth article on a game in the 90's doesn't meet WP:V unless you can actually cite the publication you read it in and an issue number.--Isotope23 16:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Verifiability is so important that there's a note about it directly below the edit window; if something can't be verified, it can't be on WP. -- Kicking222 16:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the thorough nom. --Hetar 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless verified properly.--Jersey Devil 07:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Generally I don't like an AfD again so soon after one is closed, but the problems identified are real. Perhaps the alleged game could be mentioned on the talk page for the film version and people could continue looking for sources from there if there are any to be found. Шизомби 01:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, Keep --lightdarkness (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravenet Web Services, DreamHost, EuroVPS & NexGen Internet Services

edit

All non-notable and don't include why they merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 15:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep No Google News hits about these companies, they do not appear to satisfy WP:WEB. But, most articles in categories Internet service providers, Internet hosting and Web hosting will fail to satisfy WP:WEB for the same reason. I'm concerned it would be unfair to leave some while deleting others. If these categories are cleaned out leaving only companies that satisfy WP:WEB or WP:CORP I would change my vote to delete all of the above. Accurizer 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I find the argument "but other articles that fail to satisfy WP:WEB still exist!" unpersuasive. If there are indeed such articles, Prods and AfDs should be filed. RGTraynor 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {most-see note below} per nom, all of these read like advertising to me. There is nothing critical of the companies included, and probably all of the info. can be found on their own web sites and press releases. It would appear that this nomination is an effort to start clean-up of this type of page. -MrFizyx 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metawire

edit

Non-notable and doesn't include why it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 15:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob logic

edit

Looked like nonsense, but I did find some references to this term. In which case it should probably be transwikied. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibble. I've played in lotteries when the expected net gain was positive (because of an extremely high jackpot buld-up), in which case it is supposedly rational to play. I won so much that I can now spend all my time on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. I won nothing. Needless to say, that did nothing to increase my confidence in rational decisions :) —LambiamTalk 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz the Wrestler

edit

An amateur wrestler who has yet to make his debut in the ring. Non-notable. DJ Clayworth 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was - Deckiller deleted "Freddy DeAngelis" (CSD A7/nonsense). --blue520 16:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy DeAngelis

edit

Vanity; page creator removed speedy delete tag.Keppa 16:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krstjan Klavić

edit

No footballer with such name played for Krylya Sovetov. Claimed to be a Bosnian international, but Google gives zero hits. Article created by User:Krstjan2006. Conscious 16:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete as nn bio. Wickethewok 15:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Turner

edit

Vanity and non-notable article about a 13 year-old. AFDed a second time (see the noinclude section in this AFD)... Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Illuminatorum

edit

Looks like non-notable vanity. (The bulk of the article was written by User:Gmatrius.) Also has some POV and verifiability problems; nothing that couldn't be cleaned up, but it wouldn't leave much of an article afterwards. Adam Atlas 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Moved to CSD. Kotepho 19:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Master Data Management (MDM)

edit

This article dupes Master Data Management Stephenpace 17:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Way

edit

Bizzare and unencyclopedic evaluation of an appartment building, has been though afd once, but the article hasnot been touched since and is still unfit for an encyclopedia.--Peta 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll try to merge the article with Walt Disney World College Program. Thanks for sharing the info SPUI. --Starionwolf 06:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, fits CSD A7 anyways. Tawker 05:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keiichi Nakano

edit

Non-notable filmmaker. His only claims to faim are some unspecified awards he won in highschool, and the fact that is he is a producer of the The 1 Second Film, a film for which anyone can obtain a production credit for as little as one dollar. --Hetar 17:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online, distance and blended learning courses in Ireland.

edit

I placed a prod tag on this; it was removed (with comments as detailed below on its talk page). It is is unencyclopædic and from this: Suppliers of online, distance and blended learning courses in Ireland are free to use this page to post limited information and links on their courses. is an attempt to use WP as a website. As such I'm taking this to AfD. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as posted on the talk page: I propose that it is an appropriate use of Wikipedia to create and maintain a page on online, distance and belended learning courses in Ireland as it is a public service to have such a page, it is by definition public information, and Wikipedia is probably one of the best ways of keeping the information up-to-date. If you agree, please respond to this message. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Wikipedia is NOT a free website... <_< Grafikm_fr 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a webhosting solution.--Isotope23 19:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark. I have removed the offending sentence quoted by nominator from the article. I have also posted a comment on the article's talk page, rather than here, because (I felt) it was more about the content of the article than contributing to the discussion here. LambiamTalk 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • remark. It looks like I have inapropriately placed this articele on Wikipedia. I could argue that the distinction between a directory and an encyclopedia is not significant online, but I certainly would accept that I'm wrong on this if that was the opinion of experienced editors and contributors. Because of this I will make no objection to it being deleted. However, i would ask that this be left for a short while as I have sent the URL to a significant number of people so that they could add to the entry. In the meantime I would appreciate any suggestions where I might find an open collaborative editing location that might suit a directory. --Brian 23:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikimedia software is free... all you need to do is get some free webspace and set up your own wiki. Then you can post whatever you want there.--Isotope23 04:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Needs consideration. Startup account 20:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's what this discussion is. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Untitled Album

edit

Title says it all. Article about upcoming Dashboard Confessional album, that is as of yet untitled. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. HarryCane 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: User:Afraidtorejoice already created the same article under the tentative name Dusk & Summer, so this really should be deleted. --HarryCane 17:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if anything, the newer should be deleted as a reproduction of material here, as the information in this article is sourced, and the information in the other is not. If the name ends up being Dusk & Summer, this page can be moved there. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles were created by the same user (User:Afraidtorejoice), who was the sole editor on both pages (except for my Afd-tagging). As the edit histories are minimal, it doesn't matter which article is deleted, and as one of them is named properly, that should be the one we keep. If this article is kept, "Fifth Untitled Album" would in the future link to a Dashboard Confessional album, which makes no sense. --HarryCane 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the other article isn't verified as being named properly. Thus, technically speaking, the other article is a hoax, this one is the verified deal. Rgardless, ONE of the articles should stay, and be moved to its proper name when the time comes. If another "fifth untitled album" comes along, it's not hard to change redirects. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say there shouldn't be an article named Fifth Untitled Album to begin with. The title is by no means descriptive — e.g. "Upcoming Dashboard Confessional album" (or something to that effect) would be a way better choice than "Fifth Untitled Album". --HarryCane 15:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. If this article is kept (which it should be), I certainly support a move to something like "Fifth Untitled Dashboard Confessional Album." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MHTMLRedir.Exploit

edit

OR, unverified, nn exploit. Doesn't seem major enough to report in a WP article. Werdna648T/C\@ 13:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was orphaned. Relisting on April 21st. Ral315 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted.--Mackensen (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hatefile

edit

Previously unlisted.listing now --Melaen 17:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily redirected, no further action required. Just zis Guy you know? 20:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disconnection in Scientology

edit

I mistakenly created this article in an attempt to organize the topic. It is a copy of a better established page, disconnection, and if there is ambiguity, a better page would be the existing disconnection (scientology) page. I apologize for the tedium of this request; I am a newbie and I'm just becoming familiar with the process. I think this arcticle should be a speedy deletion. Bantab 18:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. SushiGeek 08:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinuguan

edit

A non-notable recipe. WP is not a cookbook. Tango 18:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senior_Bar_Golf

edit

Not Notable, Drinking Game Unique To a Single University Ctsims 18:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was del. `'mikka (t) 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Phobias

edit

del original research, wikipedia:verifiability, heavy POV. The Phobia and -phob- artciles cover the topic adequately. `'mikka (t) 18:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - Keep. Tawker 05:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Marlowe

edit

nn and possible vanity M1ss1ontomars2k4 18:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this singular example of hagiography. Singular in that I don't think I have ever seen an article with so many edits where so few of them have been by logged-in users; virtually the entire article is the work of anons. Not that it's a problem, except in as much as the lack of references makes it necessary to rely on the reputation of the editors, but pretty much the only contribs from accounts with user pages are the addition of tags. Anyway, appears to fail WP:BIO and looks very much like more Vaughancruft. Just zis Guy you know? 19:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of biographies on Wikipedia, that some people may consider "low value." This seems to be particularly true of the slew of American editors who have been editing/recommending the page for deletion lately. It is particularly troublesome that some of the criticism is grounded in an attitude of 'this isn't interesting to non-American readers.' That seems to be contrary to the Wikipedia spirit. If Wikipedia is a community, then it should respect that not all content will be equally interesting to all readers (including our friends to the South), however, that does not necessarily make it worthy of deletion. If you check Keith's web site, he has been published in nearly every daily newspaper in Canada (http://www3.telus.net/keithmarlowe/media.html). I doubt any of the editors could say the same about themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.207.120.112 (talk • contribs)
  • This IP is also from U of Windor, probally Keith since he was blocked by the admins from his other IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.120.222 (talk • contribs)
  • I find it interesting that 208.181.120.222 has also been blocked. Blogger82
  • The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.
  • Why would you add the word 'however' to that? I fail to see how me using Bell Canada somehow distorts from my comments Blogger82
  • Strong Delete I have checked some of the links, and most of the stories appear to only be on Keith's site. 71.202.41.210 21:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to 71.202.41.210: A lot of the Calgary Sun articles were in fact written by this Paul Jackson person, but i'm not sure how reputable the Sun is, as according to WikiPedia's article it's a tabloid. Also, no good results for Keith Marlow Paul Jackson on Google. And what's Vaughancruft anyway? 71.131.61.196 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 71.131.61.196---You would be better served as using a Canadian news press engine rather than google for finding information on Marlowe. Blogger82
  • The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.
  • Why would you add the word 'however' to that? I fail to see how me using Bell Canada somehow distorts from my comments Blogger82
  • Because there is a possibility that someone from Canada (which would, of course, include people from University of Windsor and of course Keith Marlowe himself) could have been masquerading as you. Clearly, however, (according to the history) that is not the case (or at the very least you agree with User:65.94.141.187). Additionally, I like to leave others' comments alone while still keeping track of who said what. Hope this helps. BTW, in the future could you sign with four tildes? Like this: ~~~~ M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The problem is Keith is the one who created this webpage, it has nothing relevant in the article to keep it, and when Admins or even users try to add to the content, the owner removes it. Wikipedia is about adding factual information, freely, no matter what. If you want to have a article on wikipedia, you should be prepared for people to add their thoughts and not censor what people say instead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.120.222 (talk • contribs)
  • Agreed except it is quite evident from the amount of editing from moderators that much of what occured on this webpage was the work of vandalism and personal attacks (which should be expected considering its a political figure involved). 208.181.120.222 somehow equates 'thoughts' with 'factual evidence'which is not always true As well, 208.181.120.222 (and everyone else) would have to argue that somehow Marlowe's term and Presidency were not a useful tool for understanding the fusion of the Conservative movement in Canada today (which subsequently is in government). Blogger82.
  • The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.
  • Why would you add the word 'however' to that? I fail to see how me using Bell Canada somehow distorts from my comments Blogger82
User:208.181.120.222--How exactly do you know that it was Keith Marlowe who wrote the article in the first place? (disregard the history when making your case, because I could create an account with the name Keith Marlowe). Blogger82 (if it is indeed you): The article doesn't actually say how Marlowe's term changed anything with the Conservative movement in Canada. In fact, the conservatives voted away his youth wing after they merged. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does a person have to "change" something about a movement in order to have a Wikipedia page? I'm not sure Patrick Brown or Tasha Kherridan or any youth president really "changes" a movement per se. They are involved, and do what they can to defend the party's interests, the youth members' interests, and the conservative movement's interests. Marlowe was a vocal supporter of the merger from early on, and was a significant reason why the youth wing supported the merger in greater numbers than the party as a whole.
  • Many people have attempted to clean this article up, and add other information about the subject, however the information is prompty deleted by the owner/creater of the wiki.
  • Information such as...adding how people believe that he goes to a bad school? Trying to erase the entire wiki? I'm not sure why anyone would keep that sort of personal opinion on there, it adds nothing to the community's knowledge about this subject. If you wish to see more types of vanadlism, you're more than free to check out the comments section.Blogger82
  • Strong Keep Keith Marlowe has been published in the largest newspapers in the country (The Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Calgary Herald, the Halifax Chronicle Herald, the Vancouver Province, the Ottawa Citizen, the Calgary Sun, the Whitehorse Star, etc.) including several of the major university campus papers. Marlowe was the president of the PC Youth Federation, which is roughly comparable to the College Republicans or the College Democrats. If you have a problem with Keith, a young conservative leader in Canada, having a Wikipedia page, then I expect that you will all have a problem with other young conservatives, such as Paul Gourley or Eric Hoplin (both national presidents of the College Republicans) having Wikipedia pages as well. Look their pages up...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.207.120.102 (talk • contribs)
  • Erm...you're also from U. of Windsor. You better not be another of User:137.207.120.112's sockpuppets.M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irregardless of whether this happens to be true or not, 137.207.120.102 makes a good point in that wikipedia would indeed have to go delete almost every single page from every single youth president that is on here in the entire world. I would consider that to be an extreme precedent set. Blogger82
  • The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.
  • No, the user does not make a good point. Most of the other articles you mention are not anywhere near the vanity as this page. And if you feel other wiki's should be deleted, please feel free to go ahead. Wikipedia is successful because of the input of our members and community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BowRiver75 (talk • contribs)
  • Input is one thing. I doubt Wikipedia is successful because people just go around and delete pages. If you have an edit, go for it.
  • Sources like, oh... the newspaper? :)
  • Strong Keep. I think to delete this page is to ignore a critical part of history with regards to the merger of the Canadian Conservative movement in Canada. For someone that is looking into information concerning the final days of the Progressive Conservative party this page would be a suitable resource in conjunction with other pages. As I added some information that I considered to be quite relevant to this page, I suppose I bear some resposability for some of the information on it. However this can all be resolved through the use of edits and not through outright deletion. That would be considered an extreme measure. 137.207.120.102 is quite correct in pointing out that there remain many cases of other youth Presidents (from other parties and from other countries) on wikipedia. I doubt very much that as much internal-party change occured while those young men were in power that occured under Marlowe's. To remain fair, wikipedia would have to delete their webpages as well. Blogger82
  • The above comment was signed as Blogger82. However, it was written by User:65.94.141.187, an IP address registered to Bell Canada.
  • Why would you add the word 'however' to that? I fail to see how me using Bell Canada somehow distorts from my comments Blogger82
  • Strong Delete Seems to be a vanity piece and not really relevant to modern canadian politics or recent political history. It also has nothing to do with any political mergers, as Keith Marlowe is not noted in any Conservative Party documents as playing a key role. Also it should be note that Blogger82 contributed to the content earlier (most of the vanity content), and the IP address 137.207.120.102 is from U of Windsor. Why does all of the supporters for this page come from this school? It is true that other "youth" leaders have wiki pages, but no where come close to the overblown content that is in this article. Delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BowRiver75 (talk • contribs)
  • I'm fully in favour of keeping the article, and I'm not from the U of Windsor... how does your point make sense? Again, edit the page, don't delete. Haven't seen you contribute, other than in a negative way.
  • Unsigned-Bow River. I freely admitted I added content to this article (making your statement irrelevant), and I further added I would edit it out (which would be a far better solution) than deleting the whole thing.

You are also assuming that I am from the University of Windsor "All" which is not the case. Blogger82.

  • Delete Does not meet basic requirements for an article. Vanity peice. Lacks basic ciation.
  • Keep I've read the posts on this page, and as someone who was involved with the party when the merger occurred, I do find some value in the page. I think deletion would be rather extreme, given that there are biographies of most of the more recent PC Party presidents (Bruck Easton, etc.) on Wikipedia. I think the page could be perhaps made more factual, and I will attempt to do an edit on the site this evening. At any rate, I hope the edit will appease the masses, and we can move on...
  • I'm aware that Bruck is not and was not a PC Youth president. My point is simply that Bruck and others who were involved with the PC Party have Wikipedia entries, and there isn't nearly this level of kerfuffle. Again, let's edit the page, but not delete. I think there's been enough discussion here, and it's time to move forward one way or another. I would suggest we move forward in a positive, constructive way. Let's make a decision. I say keep, and edit.
  • Too many of the owner's Sock Puppets are taking over this discussion which is against Wiki policy. Please delete this article and let's get on with it.

The article does not meet basic requirements set out by wikipedia. Why keep something that does not qualify?

  • Keep The article of Keith Marlowe is pretty bad. Loged in users could do a better job. Not that they are bad. Someone needs to put more references, I will try to find some more info on him. I dont think it is necessarily worthy a deletion. FellowWikipedian (A person from Canada) 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

President of the youth wing for one of Canadas lesser powerful political parties. According to wikipedia, for a political individual to have a page they must have held office in some level of government. Marlowe fails to meet that. Also this has been up now for five days. And should be deleted soon.


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Cordova Doe

edit

This article not only "may require cleanup", it is not fit to exist as part of wikipedia in its current state. I propose to delete the article unless somebody who knows more about the topic (not me) can make a complete rewrite and cite a source other than "America's Most Wanted Official Website" Mütze 18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see the relevance of this article for an encyclopedia. If we start creating articles for every dead body that is found in the US, we never finish. Maybe one could create a "WikiCrime" branch of Wikipedia exlusively for this. Delete it. --84.139.7.182 18:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, tragic... but ultimately I just don't see the reason for this being here. WP:NOT a memorial and she doesn't technically meet WP:BIO as the "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" clause is for "persons who are still alive". There are some national news stories surrounding her, but in the end I just don't see any justification for an article. If this does get kept however, it needs a complete rewrite so that it is an actual encyclopedic article and not an "America's Most Wanted" style writeup of the case. Also should be moved to Crystal Figueroa if someone can cite a good reason for this article's existance.--Isotope23 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable, we can't have an article for every dead body (as 84.139.7.182 said). TimBentley (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Guerrera

edit

Not sure if it is notable enough. 665 google hits. -- Szvest 18:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete (would fit A7 speedy). Tawker 05:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post Tool

edit

Seems like an advertisement NurMisur 19:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily userfied as non-notable autobiography. Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Karam

edit

Non-notable biography. A rather unremarkable entrepreneur. He is also an instructor at the California College of the Arts, but he's an adjunct. Article appears to be vanity; it was created and edited nearly exclusively by Posttool (talk · contribs), which is the name of Karam's company. Mangojuice 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was A7 Delete. Tawker 07:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bolz

edit

Was speedied for CSD-A7, but notability implied. Switched to PROD, but tag removed without comment, so now comes here. Article is decending into madness toward the end. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD notification had been removed by an anon before you PRODed, Denni. Given the multiple removals of deletion notifications and the ever-changing details in the article, I now half wish I'd deleted it against the rules when I when I saw the original CSD-A7 tag! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Platon

edit

Was speedied for CSD-A7, but notability implied. Changed to PROD, but tag removed without comment, although a section has been added giving a POV on importance of the person. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platon is the author of three books about ocean racing: “The Russians are coming”, “Formula 1 of the oceans”, “Skipper’s notes”(in Russian) published in Russia and Ukraine with an audience of 35,000.

Eugene Platon is the leader of the Russian Project for the 2009-10 Volvo Ocean Race

Platon 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eplaton (talk • contribs) .

Comment Please note that the first three "external" links provided above are to the Wikipedia article Whitbread Round the World Race, also edited by Eplaton (talk · contribs · count). ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bakhteiarov (talk · contribs · count) and Eplaton (talk · contribs · count) would appear to be the same person. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual reasons for becoming famous

edit

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as ... persons." JeffW 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge. SushiGeek 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halopedia

edit

Non notable website, article is a dicdef.--Zxcvbnm 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Schonberger

edit

Non-notable Google employee; 39 Google hits. Auto-bio? Haakon 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fool (The Fallen Angel)

edit

I can't find confirmation that such a character exists; he's supposed to come from a footnote in the New Testament. Delete unless verified. GTBacchus(talk) 20:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are no footnotes in the New Testament. Fan1967 20:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 20:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above... Grafikm_fr 20:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally put the article up for prod with the following comment "I can find no mention of a Demon or an Angel called Fool in 'The New Testament of the King James Bible'. I've also performed extensive searches on the Internet and on my angel/demon listings without luck. Unless someone can cite it I think the page should be deleted, I have already informed the author". The author seemed quite certain that a reference existed despite this, which tends to make me believe it may exists in some obscure text. I agreed it was worth keeping at least for a period of time to see if anyone expands it. It has only been up a few months so is relatively new, though I guess it would be easy enough for someone to recreate later if it was removed being only a stub. -- Shimirel (Talk) 23:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If some verifiable source can be found (which I doubt) then the article can be recreated with the source being cited. Without verification, it should be deleted. Fan1967 21:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 20:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Down by the Riverside

edit

Planned film for 2007, "the debut feature from Downending Films", article written by Downending. Director, writer, cast, pretty much unknowns. Let's at least wait for the thing to get made before we decide whether it's worth noting. Fan1967 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the film needs to get made first. Then it will be non-notable ;-) Fan1967 22:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 02:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briantology

edit

Seems made up to me Nationalparks 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlawful enemy combatant

edit

Originally proposed by User:Gorgonzilla; fixing headling because {{afd2}} seems to be broken Elkman - (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Unlawful Combatant. This is simply a POV fork of Unlawful combatant. The only substantial edits come from one editor. The text here does not contribute usefully. Plurals do not get separate articles. The premise of this article is that the term is US army venacular, it is not, the use by the Bush admin is explicitly making reference to the Geneva protocols --Gorgonzilla 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did look at the other article and it was clear that you are POV pushing. Now removing the afd tag as you did, that is bad faith --Gorgonzilla 21:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mind WP:CIVIL you two. Moe ε 21:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep contingent upon the editors growing it from a redundant stub into a quality article, else Redirect and merge as the subject matter is well dealt with in Unlawful Combatant. --Flawiki 21:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Delete/Merge with Gitmo in that it's Gitmo-specific, and also because the failure on the editor's part to make any effort whatsoever to improve the stub overnight suggests that the article will never become encyclopedic. --Flawiki 11:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a crappy complaint. On one hand, people complain that I'm the only editor. On the other, they say "edit more". Flawiki, why don't you help improve the article? Merecat 22:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried asking folks at the help desk for advice? If so and you're still unable to recruit volunteers to work on the article, perhaps it's best to just let it go. Wikipedia is a big place with lots to do. I appreciate your invitation to work on the article but I don't have enough time to do a proper job on it. It'll take a substantial effort to raise from a wee stub. Factoring out the redundant bits from the other combatant articles that'll wind up here and reorganizing all of them coherently would be a sizeable task even if there were more material to discuss than just Lindsay Graham's office's press release. --Flawiki 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's dumb that this is being pushed for deletion. The nominator has shown aggression towards my work and frankly, I feel, nominated this to be vindictive. This term may be a baby in usage, but it's a distinct term and deleting it does not help the wiki. Likewise, leaving it to stay, does not harm the wiki. This kind of AfD mania is basically bullying. If the others here don't like this article, they don't need to edit it - let them edit elsewhere. Merecat 05:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit elsewhere, yes that is the point. Your creation of this fork appears to be an attempt to create a separate area where you can peddle your own opinion without the invoncenience of having others edit or dispute your work. Thats not allowed. I see no reason why this should not be a sub heading under Unlawful combatant and it is certainly easier to find. --Gorgonzilla 12:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gorgonzilla, if you had bothered to look into it, you would see that I do not have a dog in the fight at enemy combatant or unlawful combatant and am not editing those pages. I created this page unlawful enemy combatant so as to have a page for the designation which I understand has been applied to Gitmo prisoners. My research indicates this is a currently in-use term. It's you who are over-politicizing this, not me. Merecat 19:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, these prisoners are never called unlawful combatant or enemy combatant. Who are those the press is talking about? Synonyms, remember!  Nomen Nescio 20:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look for FMs directed at Enemy Prisoner of War and non-combatant handling, and Military Police operations. Morton devonshire 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did that but still could not find the term please provide the URL. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That does nothing to demonstrate a difference. -- Gorgonzilla 22:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge It's a synonym split for POV only, and they'll both feed the same POV anyway. Readers will expect to find them both at the same place. The difference is much like POW and EPW that don't merit separate articles either. -- Randy2063 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Weak Merge this seems to be covered in unlawful combtant. This seems to be rather redunant. Aeon 01:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This looks like the beginning of an excellent article. The arguments for deleting it are based on air. for instance: "redirect to Unlawful Combatant. This is simply a POV fork of Unlawful combatant." I don't see any POV in here at all. Also, it is well documented. Also.. Enemy combatant is the word being used by the Bush Administraiton, under Patriot Act Legislation[40] Americans may be held as 'enemy combatants,' appeals court rules. Government welcomes ruling upholding presidential power, see [41] or [42] The term enemy combatant is not used the same way now as it has historically been used. Let's not confuse the reader and hide fact. enemy combatant is the term that is being used by the Bush boys, right now, not unlawful combatant I just documented this above. Please let's not waste all our time asking me to document this again. Get the article out of this deletion process. thewolfstar 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Merge - If any content can be salvaged for Unlawful Combatant or Gitmo then let it be so salvaged. Otherwise, I agree; this is a POV fork and should be deleted and redirected.Captainktainer 11:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smeetfrog Park

edit

There is no Smeetfrog Park. The Smeet Frog does not exist--it's a hoax some people are trying to establish in Ypsilanti, Michigan. See here, and here for info on the project. · rodii · 21:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, obviously. · rodii · 03:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is poorly written and I was initially inclined to delete as well. However, this appears to have established itself as a something of minor phenomena within the community. There was a sign for Smeetfrog Park [43], which was even mentioned as an object lesson for teaching children in the Library of Michigan magazine Access [44] The local Dreamland Theater also puts on puppet productions themed around the fictitious frog.[45][46]. And, perhps the most significant factor for a hops lover like me, it provides name for a local microbrew ale [47]. I dunno if it really merits a separate article though. Deleteas discussed below, the article as it is is patent nonsense and concerns only one incident in a hoax. Even if kept it would need to be drastically rewritten. Some mention of it could made in the Ypsilanti, Michigan article. older ≠ wiser 22:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still not notable. Delete. -- Kicking222 23:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Notable or not, there is no such park. If you think that the hoax is notable, as opposed to the nonexistent park, then we could have an article called "Smeetfrog Park Hoax," but just writing that brings home to me how foolish the idea is. And I have to note that all of Bkonrad's cites except for the first one aren't about the nonexistent park, they're about the nonexistent frog. · rodii · 03:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree the park sign was a part of the hoax and the park is not called Smeetfrog Park. I'm not especially keen on keeping the article, like I said it is very poorly written and in fact most all of the info appear to be BS. I nearly prodded it when I first came upon it, but then settled for tagging it as unsourced. When the user came back with a rather dubious source, I looked into a little more and found the Dream Theater productions, with quite a few related publicity links in area newspapers, the Access magazine article, and the beer, which are about the fictitious frog rather than the park. So, I'll shed no tears if this is deleted in its entirety. But it does seem enough of a curiousity that it might warrant at least a mention in the Ypsilanti article. older ≠ wiser 04:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article, but consider mentioning the Smeet Frog hoax in the Ypsilanti, Michigan article as per older ≠ wiser. -- Avenue 12:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per older/wiser's linkage. Something fictitious with that much attention deserves its own article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I always hate it when people argue and argue and argue in their AfDs, but I don't feel as if I've been clear, so I'll try again--forgive me for pushing. One of those links is about the park, a photograph of a homemade sign by one of the people (who I like a lot--this isn't a vendetta, it's an argument about whether information in Wikipedia whould be true) pushing the hoax. All the other links are about the nonexistent frog--this is an article about a nonexistent park. And a non-notable one as well: try this google search: smeetfrog.park--it turns up one hit (a googlewhack!). Mentioning it in the Ypsi article makes sense, but even there it has to be discussed as a hoax. Wikipedia can't be allowed to be used to propagate hoaxes without calling all the info here into doubt. · rodii · 13:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If I could offer a guideline here, see WP:HOAX, especially the section on "Hoaxes vs. Articles about Hoaxes". Maybe that will help clarify the issue. My interpretation is that for this article to be kept, it should pass the notability criterion and then be rewritten to be clearly about the hoax, not the nonexistent bridge. If AfD thinks it's notable, so be it (though I disagree, obviously), then it's rewriting time; I can live with that. · rodii · 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, this article should go. It is nonsense. If there is to be a separate article about the hoax though, it should be at Smeet frog, as the park sign was only one incident in the hoax. But personally, I don't think it has reached a point where it really needs it's own article yet. I think a brief mention of it in the Ypsi article would suffice. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Berman

edit

I hate to seem nitpicky, but unless Wikipedia is planning to remove the articles on a bunch of other unknown/who cares? relatives of famous people who have not done anything "significant" in their lives, then I don't see any need to delete the Jack Berman article.

Otherwise, more information about Jack Berman should be included -- such as the fact he was Dianne Feinstein's first husband (they were divorced) and the father of San Francisco Superior Court Judge Katherine Feinstein, born Katherine Berman (she adopted the name Feinstein - after her father's murder, I think - so that people would make the connexion between her and her mother, and be more likely to vote for her.

In short, the problem is not necessarily that Jack Berman was a "nobody," but there's so little information about him in the article that it isn't possible to tell whether he was or was not a "somebody." For all we know, he may have been involved in arguing an important court case.

Or, he may just be a worthless nobody as one of the writers below suggests -- like *all* the rest of us, ultimately.

22 April 2006 23h50 PDT


  • First of all, I don't appreciate anybody being called a worthless nobody. You were the first user to use those offensive words. They were not used in any of the commentary below. You need to do some better research before posting on Wikipedia. My father was never married to Dianne Feinstein, and never had a daughter. I am his only child. I understand that this is an easy mistake to make, but there are many people running around with the same full names of other people. i.e. There is a Zack Berman who lives in San Francisco whom I went to school with. What I (and many others in the community) consider notable about my father is not the cases he argued, but his generosity with his time. Because of this, he had an award named after him. Lastly, I believe your logic is faulty and you were wrong in your opening sentence. There are thousands of users, such as the ones who wrote commentary below, of Wikipedia who spend enormously generous amounts of time removing articles about less notable people (outside of special interest groups and small communities). My father was a mentor to many lawyers and was known throughout the community as a mensch, but outside our community, is only known because of his death. This is why I support the deletion of this article, because I have created the stub 101 California Street Shootings. Users of wikipedia do the best that they can to govern whether an article has followed Wikipedia guidlines such as WP:NOT. --Cocopuffberman 18:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to seem heartless, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and I don't see any indication that either Mr. Berman's death or the award named after him is notable. Even if they were, notability does not attach automatically. Daniel Case 21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not a memorial. Like all encyclopedias, it is a documentation of great people and great happenings. My father was a great man. If you request that I further develop that thought I will. In the article proposed for deletion, I mentioned the many accomplishments that he had achieved, and did my best at not going on and on about what a wonderful person he was. The 101 California Street Shootings was a historical event remembered by many San Franciscans who didn't know the people involved. It made big news. I can and will cite newspaper articles on that one. If notability of that event is put into question, than I will go into further detail. As noticed by Scientizzle, I am the son of the deceased. Because it may have made my article appear to be a memorial, I have removed the line in which I mention his survivors. I will be happy to expand on any of the points if necessary. I have documentation including police reports and countless newspaper articles that I can email to you if you think you can do a better job on the article. I am in the eigth grade and am not a professional writer. As for the award named after him, this is no small deal. If you have not clicked on the link below, I recommend it. That is the primary award of achievment that has been awarded annually by the State Bar of California. Cocopuffberman 02:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added a few more links from reliable news sources to prove that this massacre that ended my fathers life is newsworthy and notable. Cocopuffberman 02:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just done a rewrite on this article to see if I could bring it up to notability. As folks might note, the incident did brush up against a lot of changes to gun control and other issues, and I've expanded on some of the memorial stuff as well. I leave it up to the other purveyors of articles from here, and give this a Keep from my neutral perspective.Tony Fox 04:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have left a message on the creator's talk page suggesting that the article be renamed to 101 California Street shootings or something in line with our naming conventions if that isn't the consensus term for it, with something on all the victims. It seems to me the event is notable in and of itself and proof has been provided of that. I think this is the best way to handle it. Daniel Case 05:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (and support for move) Daniel Case, supra, has made the suggestion that I was going to make, viz., that Berman is likely non-notable himself (or even as a shooting victim) but that the shootings are likely notable in view, inter al., of the sundry pieces of legislation one can verifiably tie to the shootings, so I'd definitely support a move to 101 California Street shootings, with the proviso that much of the Berman information won't be relevant there (I did rewrite the article a moment ago in order that it would conform to MoS, etc., in case it should be kept). I do appreciate that the article's creator is new to Wikipedia, but I do think his imputation of bad faith on Daniel Case's talk page was was inappropriate; I certainly don't infer any malign motive from this nomination. Joe 05:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally felt the presidency of the AJC was a fairly notable thing, but if folks feel it's a better idea to shift the article to one about the shootings, I'll switch my Keep vote. (Interesting tidy job, by the way; I had to find a definition of "eleemosynary," though.) Tony Fox 05:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Complete I appreciate your comments and have created the 101 California Street Shootings page. It is a work in progress, and I would appreciate it if you would help me develop it. There is a brief synopsis of what happened, and an entry for each of the victims. I know the familys of the victims, and they may act as direct sources. I also have a large collection of newspaper articles and other documents. I would like to please ask though, that it not be nominated for deletion until it is completed. It is very hard to make progress on something while having to defend its very existance. Cocopuffberman 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Cocopuffberman 01:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T35

edit

Non-notable web host that doesn't explain why it belongs in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fails WP:WEB and is plain adspam. Delete Ardenn 21:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel § 01:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islands of British Virgin Islands

edit

listcruft without additional value. Perhaps it can be merged to the main British Virgin Islands article, but definitely doesn't deserve an article of its own Hirudo 21:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Łowcy Hordy Edwarda

edit

A Polish football firm, no signs of notability, article has more info on general crime fighting activities in Poland and England than info on the firm. There are loads of hooligan gangs larger than this one that hasn't got an article, and that shouldn't have an article either. – Elisson • Talk 21:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wavedash

edit

gamecruft. I really don't think we need a page on each move or type of move in video games Hirudo 21:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tellos

edit

Non notable webcomic. Rory096(block) 21:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. SushiGeek 08:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Bella

edit

Subject is hardly notable. No awards to her credit. Has roughly fifty films, if we are to believe IMDB (other pornography-oriented databases such as IAFD and AFDB list far less movies). Delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't go that far. We've seen a number of cases with one IMDB entry that's an unreleased student film. However, in this case, the person seems to meet the porn standards for notability, such as they are. Keep. Fan1967
  • I've personally noted that IMDB is fairly unreliable when it comes to following porn films, actors, and the like; sites dedicated to this genre tend to be better fleshed out and far more accurate. Just my view on the subject. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Fleshed"? Good choice of words there :-) Daniel Case 01:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep — I guess she has a sufficient "body of work" to be considered "barely notable", in am manner of speaking. We need a better standard for porn star notability. Maybe some types of awards? — RJH 17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Popoff

edit

Delete Non-notable artist, no sources quoted for notability even after a Talk page discussion. This has been through an AfD before (result was a unanimous Delete). This time round was speedied twice, then prod'ed; each time the notice was removed without comment, so we're back here again. If consensus is to delete again, we may consider protected the page from re-creation Gwernol 22:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment original AfD discussion is here Gwernol 22:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famine sceptics

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleturkish

edit

Recreated after being deleted under PROD, so essentially an ex post facto contested PROD. I don't deny the truthfulness of some of the things asserted in this article. I live in Berlin and hear people code-switching between German and Turkish all the time. However, I can find no evidence that this phenomenon is known as Aleturkish or Aletürkisch. I can find no evidence that any of the books listed under "sources" actually exist. I would fully support a verifiable article citing reputable sources (that I can actually find on the Internet or in the library) on the topic of German/Turkish code-switching, but this article isn't that. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It makes too much sense to be a hoax, except that it must be a hoax. I searched long and hard, and in spite of my diligence, like nominator could not find a shred of evidence that any of the listed sources or even their authors exist. "Özyargılı" should be "Önyargılı" ("prejudiced") and presumably be part of the title; its appearance after a semicolon as a kind of afterthought (what does it refer to?) is strange. Bulut Yayınları is an existing publisher. I could not find the book using the search function on their web site, although that does not mean much because I could not find some books that I know for certain they published either. But these did turn up in Google search. "Deutschen Verlag" is somewhat suspicious; it should be "Deutscher Verlag", and as far as I know that name was only in use during the Nazi period. Or is it "Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften"? I don't know what happened to this VEB after the unification. Or "Deutsche Verlag-Anstalt"? For a book in a major language that is even a second edition, and as recent as this, and for a relatively sexy topic, it is really really strange nothing on it can be found on the Web. The search term "McCornigal" has 0 hits. "McConigal" has some, but "George McConigal" again zilch. Ugh. LambiamTalk 23:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked in the online catalog of the Staatsbibliothek Berlin for any of these books or their authors and came up empty. The basic premise is not a hoax, but the details in this article are one. Angr (talk • contribs) 00:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was del. `'mikka (t) 05:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalinizing

edit

del wikipedia:Verifiability problem for this particular meaning of the word ("retouching"). `'mikka (t) 22:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 01:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyance cult

edit

WP:NFT... ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep --lightdarkness (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schooner Jenny

edit

Doesn't seem very notable, just 187 Ghits, not all relevant. Rory096(block) 22:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I found a reference to the tale of the Jenny (added to the article). This seems like one of those items which isn't going to turn up much on Google as its "ancient history" but is still notable enough that we should cover it in Wikipedia. Gwernol 23:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Australian poet Rosemary Dobson wrote a poem about it in The Ship of Ice and other poems published in 1948. Dobson won a Sydney Morning Herald poetry prize for her work. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I seem to remember reading about this once. Needs a source in addition to the poem, though.Thatcher131 03:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. This source notes that a 1989 survey of Antarctic expeditions found one 1862 reference, otherwise no corroboration. The original source may have been apocryphal. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Players Club

edit

Basically advertising, and I don't think anything can be done to it that will make it look like it isn't advertising. -- Grev 23:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking giddy up

edit

Minor fad that appears to be limited to one community, judging by the relatively large amount of editors to the article, I suspect the article has been posted on said message board for improvement by the posters. -Obli (Talk)? 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Young

edit

Doesn't seem entirely notable. She may have a listing at IMDB [51], but other than that she doesn't seem to have a following that I can discern. Delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disgaree --24.80.225.108 01:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as well --SteveHFish 02:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly well-known actress. GreatGatsby 03:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep her on here. theres no reason to take her off — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.195.245 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete — Well-known? By whom? Successful? How? There is no documented evidence of her notability here. The bar needs to be set higher for a porn star, I think. — RJH 17:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go to link farms, you'll see thumbnails of her everywhere. GreatGatsby 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this doesn't mean anything... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who comments on porn star pages, you seem ignorant of the women involved in the industry. It certainly means something, if someone has many videos on the internet, they're worth a page. Hell, a lot of the porn stars are less famous than others who don't even have pages. GreatGatsby 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am aware of who Christine Young is, thank you. However, just because there are thumbnails of her everywhere doesn't make her notable. The only thing it means is that porn webmasters and linkfarm maintainers view Young as a viable commodity; it doesn't make it so, however. As far as I can tell, she has been in a handful of movies and does not seem to have garnered any awards of any kind. has she been the subject of a particularly newsworthy article by a credible source. Hence my nomination for deletion. Thank you for your comments. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the proof is where? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 02:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 23:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pieday

edit

Delete or Redirect to Pi Day The story on this page seems made up to me. Nationalparks 23:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy per G1. Tawker 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine safety

edit


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Hollister

edit

vanity/nn Amcfreely 00:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a better biography than my first entry. This should satisfy all objections. I was lazy and just copied bio from company homepage. jspugh


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google X Directory

edit

Non-notable website which has consistently been linkspammed in other articles by article author. Haakon 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_21&oldid=1234127482"