Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 19 March 21 >

Purge server cache

March 20

[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. Shanel 02:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Dodd

[edit]

not, alas, notable. Midgley 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP -- Francs2000 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universitat de València

[edit]

the article doesn't tell you anything Where (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If it didn't tell you anything that would make it a speedy deletion candidate, not an afd candidate. As it is Google shows that there really is a university of this name, therefore this should be cleaned up, not deleted. -- Francs2000 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, this article should be expanded and cleaned up, not deleted. Why would you ever want to delete an article that refers to a legitimate University?
  • Merge or expand. Unless this article is greatly expanded it seems to make more sence to place this information in the education section of the article on Valencia, which is currently empty.
  • Keep and expand article --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This was tagged one minute after it was written. That has to be a record. Universities need articles. I suggest speedy keep in fact to let this editor have a go at it. --Bduke 01:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep since this is notable enough and it is a very new article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE Harro5 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fake Facebook profiles

[edit]

This list does not meet guidelines for notability or importance. Furthermore, there is no way to cite any sources. The list could become extremely long as there are numerous fake profiles being created. This basically would end up being a list of celebrities, politicians, internet memes ("Limecat"), and other random fictional characters ("Captain Planet"). Sorry to spoil your fun, but this does not belong on Wikipedia. L1AM (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 02:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jostein Saether

[edit]

This author has only published two books, and only has 481 Google results. The proposed deletion tag was removed, so I guess it comes here --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, well, its already assumed that I'm voting the article for deletion as I've nominated the article on AfD. Also, the book that he has written ranks only #661,217 on Amazon --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon may or may not be the New Age retailer of choice. E.g. lotsa notable Jewish books sell terribly on Amazon - b/c Jewish people buy them in specialty stores - same could be here. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, overall I'm still not sure if having one or two books published with questionable notibility makes the author notable enough for Wikipedia. --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PJM and WP:AFDP --David.Mestel 15:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as per JzG, just barely not notable enough to me. I mean, by the plaque off my teeth. Lord Bob 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Published author. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The book popular enough to have a lot of listing in on the Amazon used books page.Seano1 01:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal keep. This author is not one whom I would consider to be directly "notable" in himself alone; however it is clear looking through InfoTrac and on Google that his work has been referred to by others (albeit to a comparatively minor degree). In my own personal opinion, I wouldn't say he's worthy of inclusion in any encyclopaedia due to lack of substantial merit on his part, but of course since Wikipedia is meant to be a "sum of human knowledge" we don't seem to ignore people who have some demonstrable level of following in the world at large simply because of their academic insignificance. Admittedly, if Wikipedia were my encyclopaedia, such articles as this would be deleted post-haste, but mercifully for the world this is not the case. Thus it seems he is notable enough to warrant an article given usual Wikipedia editorial procedure. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep his second book can be found here [1] (found on Google Scholar). His writings may not be enough on their own for notability as an author, but he is also an academic, with verifiable contributions. Mangojuice 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maze Clays(tm)

[edit]

Delete nn sport, ad, vanity, prod removed by creator w/o explanation the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that it's an ad, not an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not free adspace. Fan1967 01:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nominated this page for deletion because I believe this sport does not meet the notability criteria required under WP:N and further because the purpose of the article is to promote the sport/organization. Your input is valued here - go ahead and read the policies, and then you can make a case for why this article should be retained in the encyclopedia. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom Nobunaga24 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to deletion request. Maze Clays is a new shotgun discipline that was just recently launched. It is a unique and newsworthy topic, from the fact that it already has a following in the shooting ranges that it was introduced. We have had TV coverage that is about to air in the following weeks. The article is not an ad or vanity, it plainly states the creators of the discipline and the main characteristics. It does not go into the benefits of this game over the other existing shotgun sports. This topic is verifiable by visiting the official website.
  • Not a promotion - it simply states the components and rules of the game. Please explain what you mean your accusations in greater detail so that I may respond.
    • God forbid, no accusations. I have nothing against you, and your shouldn't try to convince me, rather everybody here. The problem with your page is that I believe it violate WP:N and is an ad. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Details** I understand that this is a debate. I would like to know specifically, what is it that you see in this article that would classify it as an ad? Second, I have explained the fact that it is notable, because it is unique, something new a novelty, which already has a following among the hundreds of shooters who have tried it out.
  • Basically, there are two points. (1) it looks like an ad for the website that licenses the game and sells the equipment. (2) It appears non-notable as, basically, it looks like practically nobody is doing this. The lack of Google hits makes this look like a start-up attempting to get some exposure. You claim there's a following, yet nobody seems to be talking about it. (By the way, sign your comments with ~~~~) Fan1967 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all the article does not talk about licensing or selling the equipment. It describe the Maze Clays discipline. The link to the website is put there for verifiability purposes.

Second, just because you can't find hits on Google doesn't mean that it does not have a following. What corellation exists between shotgun shooters and computer users. What basis do you have to tell me that shotgun shooters automatically are big fans of computers? The purpose of the article is to inform shooters about the existance of a new shotgun sport. What is wrong with that. The article does not mention a sales pitch which you claim that it is. Cautaro

  • Everybody's on the internet these days. Every gun club has a website and, apparently, if any of them are running these games, they're not listing them. Read the policy: WP:V. You cannot provide any verification other than the vendor's website that shows there is a following. Fan1967 02:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author wrote the following on my page page:
This is a quote from the notable page: "The word notable is often used as a synonym of "unique" or "newsworthy." 

To explain, Maze Clays is unique because it uses a new system of operating the shotgun sport. Besides that it has a new classification and no registered targets are are necessary, two new, unique things which don't currently exist. 

Second, it is newsworthy. We have been filmed by the Comcast channnel CSS and will be airing in the following weeks. We are in talks with other media sources who are interested to feature Maze Clays.
The fact that you are the producer of this product means that the article may also violate WP:VANITY. Also, Maze Clays has not yet been aired on any major media sources; whether it will be in the future is irrelavent. Finally, the article does not assert the notability of its topic and we thus have no idea how many users the product has and if that number is significant. Perhaps later it would be a good article, but not now. Where (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all the article describes a shotgun discipline, which by definition cannot be sold. The equipment is described to provide a better understanding of the game. Second, what is wrong with having the information come directly from the authors of the creation. In this day in age, where the internet allows creators and users to come together, why would Wikipedia be a barrier to this type of communication?
  • Inclusion criteria: What would the article need in order to be included? User:Cautaro
  • First of all, the article insists on using the TM symbol every time the discipline is mentioned. In other words, no one can run these games without paying royalties to the owners of the trademark. Don't be disingenuous. By definition, that is selling. In addition, it seems there's specialized equipment for this sport that's also being sold. Second of all, You are under a delusion that appears to be quite common, you believe Wikipedia exists to help promote and publicize new things. It does not. Fan1967 03:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is newsworthy, the the news has covered it. Point out solid newspaper or magazine references for this subject, and it'll be considered notable. If they are 'soon to be', then the article will be deleted, without prejudice, and you can recreate it once a newspaper prints something on the subject. -Mask 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You believing that this is unique and newsworthy is not enough. Uniqueness and newsworthiness have to be borne out by other sources than people directly related to an article's subject. Hbackman 02:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like a single hyperlink to your website (added today even), not an independently written news/magazine article. -Dawson 19:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still trying, eh? lol - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - The website that posted this link considered it as being a newsworthy item in order for them to place it on the main page under the News of Interest section. Cautaro 15:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The losttargets.com site is listed as a partner of mazeclays. Should be looked at with a grain of sand. Also, the memberlist on the forums on mazeclays.com include two entries, one of which was automaticaly created by the BBS program. -Mask 18:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response The LostTarget.com site is news site for shotgun enthusiasts. The fact that it appears under the Partners page is just a gesture of appreciation for their support. Second, the forum at mazeclays.com is a new addition and the list of users does not reflect the number of members. The number of users is just how many people registered to use the forums without correlation to members. Cautaro 13:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, copyvio, vanity. --Soumyasch 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuko Aoki

[edit]

Keep page had prod tag, I changed to afd because while the article is very weak, she was actually one of the most popular bikini models in Japan about 10 years ago, then abruptly abandoned her modeling career Nobunaga24 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you remove the PROD tag and take it to Afd and vote Keep? Just remove the PROD tag and it is a Keep! --FloNight talk 02:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you enter the kanji for her name (青木裕子) you actually get 500,000 hits Nobunaga24 02:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added to afd because I hate it when people just remove my prod tag, so I won't do it to someone else :). I figure if somebody wants to delete it, it's probably worth debating a bit. Nobunaga24 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Her picture was everywhere on the internet back in 1997-1998. -- JJay 02:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep nothing contested. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what with all this "keep" talk the article as it stands could still be speedily deleted as having no claim to notability. I put a note to that effect on the talk page and {{prod}}-ed it instead of speedily deleting it myself, in fact. Here's a bit of a crazy idea - put some of these references into the article. I'll spare everyone the quotation from wp:v that says that the burden is on whomever wants an article included to provide sources. - brenneman{T}{L} 04:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also reversed the "speedy keep" closure as testimony of editors isn't a source. Clearly someone *cough* me *cough* thought this was open to debate, as a prod tag had been added, and no actual citations have been provided to indicate notability, just some hand waving and a google search. And while I suppose that there is nothing saying that someone known for their "large breasts" couldn't have gone on to do work in host sphingolipid biosynthesis as a target for hepatitis C virus I suspect that this is in fact a common name and many of these hits are spurious. Can we see some actual sources, please.
    brenneman{T}{L} 05:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer also un-closed at the same time as me (with no edit conflict?) so sorry that I was a bit narky about the quick close.
    brenneman{T}{L} 05:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could read Japanese, you would know that if you do a search using kanji, that she was (and still is) incredibly popular in Japan and also outside of Japan. She has several DVDs in Japan, and numerous photobooks. A search on amazon.co.jp will show this. As far as fleshing out this article, a) I only stumbled across it today because it was listed for deletion b) since I do most editing at work, searching bikini model web sites isn't really an option as I would probably get fired. This needs to be expanded, not deleted. Nobunaga24 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is exactly why I used prod instead of speedy deletion, I repeat. All I'm asking for is that rather than closing this as "keep" and leaving the article a micro-stub that someone sometime in the next five days puts some evidence into the actual article. If for no other reason than so that I may bookmark them for, ah, research.
    brenneman{T}{L} 05:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I know of the existence of this page, when I can get some edit time where I don't run the risk of a sexual harassment suit, believe me, I will dedicate myself to expanding it. I will make the sacrifice of browsing page after page of scantily clad, buxom Japanese models in order to ferret out more information to add to the general repository of knowledge contained in wikipedia. That is if in the process of research I remember to come back to wikipedia. Nobunaga24 06:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 11:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep, if the kanji explanation noted above is correct (my study of Japanese never went that far). Lankiveil 11:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough based on a quick google, asides from everyone else's comments (and the nominator's). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete since I don't actually think she ahs ever done anything that notable. Any woman with large enough breasts can garner a million Googles easily without ever doing anything of any signifciance whatsoever. Not that I care overmuch, but this really does seem to be breastcruft. I suppose it might justifiably be defended per systemic bias, as balancing some of the millions of utterly non-notable American women with large breasts... Just zis Guy you know? 18:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'll contest it. She's a girl with moderately large breasts (this is the second draft of my comment) and she appeared in one porn movie 20 years ago. Wow. Non-notable. It's a speedy delete, not a speedy keep. If there's someone who cares enough to add other movies she must surely have appeared in, then they should do so post-haste rather than merely asserting her fame here. -Splashtalk 01:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the article is claiming she's notable for being a famous bikini model, not for being a woman with large breasts or an actor. The only evidence I have of her notability are the Google hits and the word of Nobunaga and JJay, but for me, that's enough to keep a recently created stub. While editors' personal knowledge shouldn't be cited as a source in articles, it seems reasonable to me to consider it in behind-the-scenes judgements like AfDs. (I haven't been here long, so if anyone can point me to any old discussion on that last point I'd appreciate it.) --Allen 02:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the article says "mainly known for her large breasts.", not "is mainly known as a bikini model". The only passing claim to notability is having, as they say, big ***s. Evidence that can't go in an article is difficult to find much use for, since it is the article and the material in it that is at issue here. -Splashtalk 02:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, it does say that. But what about this official website that Nobunaga added? The "discography" link goes here... she seems to be a recording artist with a major label album, which would make her notable in itself. I'd add it to the article, but I'll leave that to the editors who can read Japanese. --Allen 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure that this means she is signed with HMV, if that's what you mean, since I'm not even sure that they are a label. Even if it does mean that, WP:MUSIC asks for two albums on a major label, and there is no proof of that. Allmusic.com has never heard of her, sugesting that probably that release was not, in fact, on a singificant label. -Splashtalk 02:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I was thinking Universal Music Group, not HMV. Again, I can't read Japanese, but it looks to me like a Universal release. And you're right that it's just one, but it's packaged with a DVD and looks like the kind of big pop release that would easily have sold 5000 copies. --Allen 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, I see. Hmmm, that is difficult. But absent any proof of notability (or even, for that matter any proof of the one claim in the article), it remains deleteable, and speedily. -Splashtalk 03:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Perhaps. I bet Nobunaga will be able to shed a lot of light on this when he gets back. --Allen 03:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Actually, looking at the IMDB listing, I don't think that's her. She would be about 10 or 11 years old when that movie came out, and seeing as it looks like an erotic film, I doubt it's her. Most of her *ahem* movies are "smile and pose" straight to DVD type jobs, not listed on IMDB. The album is news to me, but I'll look at the site. I'm not really a Jpop fan so I don't stay on top of those things (actually I despise Jpop). Nobunaga24 06:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (regretabbly). Having large breasts does not notability make. It's borderline CSD A7 as the entire article is "Yuko Aoki (青木裕子, born February 5, 1977) is a Japanese bikini model mainly known for her large breasts." which doesn't make much of case for importance/notability, does it? --kingboyk 08:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is no sense about her large breasts.--Taichi 05:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witold Gustaw Pawel Maria Czartoryski

[edit]

Speedy delete. Not even an article.


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

The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Premier production discography

[edit]

c. i dont know if you guys read point b.? the article takes correct information from the afromentioned site (which stands under a Creative Commons license which is harmed) without linking or crediting and adds additional false information. is that not reason enough for a deletion? who-am-i 15:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Merge per Tom. JoshuaZ 04:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catme 06

[edit]

The article says "The Catme movement was created and announced on March the 19th, 2006 over the Internet, by three friends who were bored on a Sunday afternoon." I assume that refers to Wikipedia. Good old Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Delete. Melchoir 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created in response to press release sent out by parties involved. I know them. It's legit.
I can see how this would be considered on the gray area of acceptable use policy, but I maintain that it fits.
If any "movement" were chronicled the day it was born, would it still be superfluous?
The people involved have a sense of humor, but it is not a joke, they put their actual filmmaking beliefs in their manifesto. And between the three of them, they have actual film credits, books on filmmaking in stores, reviews in Variety, Film Threat, etc.

Regarding "by three friends who were bored on a Sunday afternoon", The Dogme 95 movement was created exactly the same way.

Just my six cents, Eliza. —This unsigned comment was added by ElizaBarrington (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 March 2006.


-- Good point, Fan1967. --Eliza. ElizaBarrington

  • Delete per nom... and as for the "created today" part, WP:CHILL applies. Verifiability and notability first, then inclusion. --Kinu t/c 02:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. The problem is not how long it took to create this, or how many people. One person might conceivably create something notable in a short time, which could lead to a lot of publications by reputable sources. But here notability is not established, it fails the Google test, and worst of all it also appears to be unverifiable. The external link in the article redirects through a meta http-equiv="refresh" to Jeff and Genevieve's Photos, which don't seem that notable either, and whose connection to Catme 06 I am unable to grasp. LambiamTalk 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like the catme06.com domain is brand new, from GoDaddy; the redirect may have been left over from the previous renter of the IP. It's been fixed now, and basically matches the article. Also, it appears that one of the "three friends" who thought this up is, in fact, a cat. At least, there is a Julie Peasley whose website ([4]) includes pictures with her cat, Squeaky McGee [5]. This whole thing is starting to look more like a hoax. Fan1967 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Najeh-gram

[edit]

hoax, 0 googles RJFJR 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Wait a minute, I can't see why we can't have this as a redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual interpretations of Batman

[edit]
  • Delete This section of the Batman article has been agreed upon by a number of editors and has withstood attack as well as suggestions it be removed, for over a year now. The consensus has consistently been that it would be against the rules to remove the material to its own article since it is against policy to get rid of provocative material in this fashion. The argument that the article is too long is spurious on its face: for example, today's featured article Sun is 51K long, while the Batman article is only 44K long, and there are other sections that could be spun off if so desired. Haiduc 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reason for this to have its own article. Carlo 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think it's the begining of an article that will be strong enough to stand on it's own merits. -- Ipstenu 14:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since this information is already doing fine in the Batman article. I'm not convinced there's much more to say than is already there. -- Mithent 14:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and Keep the material in the Batman article. Well sourced description of a legitimate and widely-held point of view. No good reason for removing it from the Batman article has been articulated. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it back or Keep. Material too good to throw away. --kingboyk 17:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect (merge and delete is banned per GFDL). Unless this was split out, in which case revert and delete. Just zis Guy you know? 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with Batman (not the entire article, just a brief summary). Catamorphism 19:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourced, verifiable, basically well written and intersting. Batman is 44K with this material, so breaking it out would be reasonable. I would not support reducing it to a brief summary in Batman - why take legit information out of the encyclopedia? BD2412 T 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412 -- and I'm usually a mergist. --M@rēino 02:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe the best thing to do is to have this information in the main article. There it presently resides, and sits very well with the rest of the article which provides it context, lacking in the fork. The (possiblly POV) fork has nothing that the version in the original article Batman doesn't—unsurprisingly, as it looks like it was simply removed from the original article. (An editor later reverted the deletion from the original, so this same text now lies in two pages). The removal accomplished little: it reduced the size by a miniscule 4k. Furthermore, Batman is a Wikipedia:Featured article: part of its value is that it includes this thoughtful, well-written section on an interesting subject, the sort of commentary that is sorely lacking in most comic and pop-culture type articles on WP. Deleting the section is therefore a poor choice, IMHO: we damage a featured article by removing one of its most interesting sections, and then place this well-written information to what amounts to a POV fork, where bereft of context it is distinctly suboptimal. All for the supposed benefit of reducing the article from 44kb to 40kb. If 44kb was a perfectly acceptable length for the FA director, then it ought to be perfectly fine for Wikipedia, I imagine. ;-) Therefore, delete Homosexual interpretations of Batman, please. There is no need to merge anything, as the text was originally at Batman (and still is, along with the pictures and references). The references in the original have to be sorted out by someone familiar with the article, though: there appear to be two sections. —Encephalon 23:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South-Central Eurasia

[edit]

A term "increasingly being used" despite that it receives 105 Google hits. I would say non-notable, and possibly original research because the user who created this is probably affiliated with the website South-Central Eurasia News. (Check his/her contributions) --Khoikhoi 02:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda in the american media system

[edit]

Original research. This is somebody's term paper. -- Curps 02:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's an effect of the way the author pasted the article. He/she didn't realize that an extra carriage return was needed to start a new paragraph, so in WP each section ended up as one paragraph. That could be cleaned up, but why bother? Fan1967 16:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelgrim Lith'ensay

[edit]

Delete. Fiction, non-encyclopaedic. ShaunES 02:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weddingsireland.com

[edit]

Claims to be Ireland's first wedding website. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB; Google turns up only job listings and self-promotion by the site itself and its non-notable host. No non-trivial coverage, no awards, Alexa 99,764. Melchoir 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Gilley

[edit]

is somebody really notable just for being related to a notable person? Where (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 03:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 15:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken alfredo pizza

[edit]

Transwiki to Wikibooks then Delete exolon 03:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Steven Lasher

[edit]

Autobiographical vanity page. Girolamo Savonarola 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - IMDb has a listing for him, seems notable enough, John Lasher at IMDb. Though it does need some cleanup. Dismas|(talk) 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Vote changed per Girolamo's last few points below. The first two make it sound like Girolamo wants to in some way punish Lasher and his associates for creating articles whether they are notable or not but his last few points are valid. Dismas|(talk) 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Dismas, though IMDB is hardly a guarantee of notability. Needs third party sourcing for the soundtrack information, but seems notable to me. -Dawson 04:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed to Weak Delete per Girolamo Savonarola's information below. While I still think the article could potentially be salvaged, the lack of independent sources, and the degree of notability is such that it would be best served at this time by merging into the other articles cited. -Dawson 18:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it extremely faux pas to write a new article about yourself, notability regardless? I thought the idea was that if you truly are notable, someone else will get around to it eventually, and with better objectivity. Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, yeah? Girolamo Savonarola 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Some tidyup needed, but it seems to me that this man's technical innovation marks him out (notability-wise) from other low-output directors. The self-promotion does make me tempted to swing towards deletion, but I guess I'd better set that aside. -- BrownHairedGirl 04:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete After reading the results of Girolamo's careful research (thanks!), I'll change my vote to delete. That's not to "punish" the author, but because the evidence no longer allows me assume as much good faith about the potential notability of the subject. --BrownHairedGirl 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but drop the creator a note about creating vanity pages. Hbackman 05:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Evidence presented by Girolamo definitely weakens the case for this article, but I still feel that it's keepable. His later points are good ones, but I do object to the idea that misconduct of the article's creator means that we should definitely delete the article here, almost as a punishment (if I misinterpreted that point, please let me know). Hbackman 20:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Very sizable percentage of user contributions are vanity edits, including all links back to this article.
  2. Blatant disregard for vanity guidelines as discussed on Wikipedia:Spam (specifically under "How Not to Be a Spammer" point number one), Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. Especially notable in the light of the fact that he already had a vanity article, Vox Melba Mastering Labs, speedily deleted for this reason and engaged in a vigorous debate with several editors wherein these policy guidelines were linked and thoroughly explained to him. Nonetheless, he has added an article about himself shortly since then.
  • Just to clarify for those who have asked above, I bring these points up merely to show that a) the user is familiar with these policies and encountered them before, and b) continues to make a substantial number of edits whose main or only purpose is to highlight himself and his work. Sure the two together are relevant? It's certainly not vandalism, but were this to continue like this substantially longer, it would. I'm concerned, is what. Girolamo Savonarola 23:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Non-notability in regard to the majority of the article - while I have no doubt that he facilitated the commercial availability of classic movie soundtracks, I certainly wouldn't consider such a producer any more or less notable than someone who produces, say, the budget classical music CDs for Naxos, or an assistant director who has worked on big Hollywood films for several years. Its interesting work involving other notable things and people, but co-relation with such things does not confer notability in and of itself. (Were that the case, you could argue the every name ever listed in a playbill, liner notes, or end credits of any creative work counts as a notable entry.) As for the Bernard Herrmann info, it is uncited and has a high probability of conflation as it is an autobiographical article.
  2. All of the Vox info relates to companies and divisions founded and run by John Lasher. A quick search on the internet confirms that he runs them in conjunction with the man responsible for his bio on his IMDb page. Furthermore, it seems as though the company was only recently started, which again smells awfully like self-promotional ad-spam. While it is marginally interesting and notable, I believe it would better be served by a brief mention and link in the phonograph cylinder article. Which Mr. Lasher has already done.
  3. The Kinopanorama info, similarly, is somewhat interesting, but of his work, it's been barely seen and by his own admission, only one of his three films in this format has been fully completed or screened en-masse. Again, this would be far more appropriately merged as brief mentions in the Kinopanorama article. Which, again, Mr. Lasher has already done.
I simply don't think that the creation of an autobiographical article is proper in any regard, nor do I think that Mr. Lasher qualifies as an encyclopedic subject at the moment. I am willing to concede the latter point, but only if someone other than Mr. Lasher or his associates feels fit to create such an article. IMHO, the case here is very cut and dry and is about vanity and disregard for the policies and guidelines. I think that Mr. Lasher does interesting work and has worked with interesting people, but this alone is hardly enough to warrant an encyclopedia article written by someone else, much less himself. Thank you. Girolamo Savonarola 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as discussed above. The JPS 15:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Delete non-notable. Only assertion of notability can be merged into Kinopanorama. The JPS 16:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, vanity. Nigelthefish 20:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable or, at least, not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Marcus22 20:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. We can not keep a page for every person that exists out there. Triage 14:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hereby demand that you delete this page about me without further ado. I have read the comments by each of you and am totally disgusted by many of the comments therein. As far as I am concerned, most of you have nothing better to do than to argue amongst yourselves. Other that the moderator, who seems to have some sort of grip on each of you, none of you have any knowledge of my 32-years work in the music and film industries. Obviously none of you have purchased any one of the fifty recordings produced by me, or, for that matter, seen either of the two Kinopanorama films, one of which you deleted from Wikipedia. Lastly, to those of you who stated that IMDB is a vanity site I am sure there administrators would not take kindly to your comments. Entries at IMDB are vetted for authenticity, and only approved after an appropriate investigation is conducted. John Steven Lasher. [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslasher (talk • contribs)
none of you have any knowledge of my 32-years work in the music and film industries. Obviously none of you have purchased any one of the fifty recordings produced by me, or, for that matter, seen either of the two Kinopanorama films, -- Sorry that we were unable to pander to your ego. Hbackman 23:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, simple fact is, an IMDB entry is no guarantee of meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Being able to back up information with reliable sources does. Assuming you actually are Mr. Lasher, I'm sure you could provide independent sourcing (ie, not written by Mr. Sefton-Parke), and a complete discography for the article, and make it potentially worth keeping, instead of throwing a tantrum. The Hotmail address does not lend much credibility, especially when IMDB and other sites have a different email address listed. -Dawson 00:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Also, please keep in mind DFTT. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willy on Wheels

[edit]

Is it at all useful for Wikipedia to have an article on this vandal. I don't think so. I doubt that it is. Booking563 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 64.192.107.242 03:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chastity, Truth and Kinopanorama

[edit]

Vanity page written by the film's producer Girolamo Savonarola 03:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 04:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi_meihm

[edit]

This actor doesn't meet WP:BIO, neither google nor imdb.com have ever heard of him, or the movie he was supposedly in Xyzzyplugh 03:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transsexual pregnancy

[edit]

This article is an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. It's interesting, but not an encyclopedic topic, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, female-to-male transsexuals *could* get pregnant, if they aren't on hormone replacement therapy, or have just started it. But, that's not an encyclopedic topic either.--Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 03:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Thomas

[edit]

Non-notable university sports palayer, see WP:BIO. BrownHairedGirl 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lureon

[edit]

Nn character from a nn e-game which has been shut down (see article text).Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 12:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Space Farmers

[edit]

nn band. 149 google hits. will be performing at a cafe in the future, so they claim.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruneian Student Association in Western Australia

[edit]

Nn political-type club (these sorts of clubs usually do some type of political campaigning). It is 6 days old -read the text.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. No point letting this particular debate carry on any longer. kingboyk 13:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Barnes

[edit]

article does not assert the subject's notability Where (talk) Let's debate to get consensus on T1 04:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Though very little info is provided on him (bio, prior head coaching positions), he is the head men's basketball coach at a Division I school in a major conference, and has had success (one Final Four appearance). This would be considered noteworthy IMHO. We simply need more Wikipedians to expand the article (photo, other info). 160.147.240.6 17:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, we could have the expand tag on the page and make efforts to expand and apply notability to the page. I'm sure that there is some importance behind this page. Shawn 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article, of course, needs to be expanded, it is, I think, settled that coaches of "high-profile" sports teams at major U.S. universities are notable, whatever one may now think about that determination (see, e.g., Steve Alford, Dick Bennett, Bo Ryan, and Billy Donovan, to list four). Joe 04:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable college sports coach. dbtfztalk 04:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know little of college basketball, but if the Longhorns play in the NCAA tournament every year, (and they're still alive in this year's) their coach is notable. Fan1967 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course, if they screw up my bracket by failing to win the tourney, then I'll vote delete :). Joe 04:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even as I believe the article, in its first iteration, to have been sufficiently clear as to the notability of the subject (at least to an American user), I can't abide the suggestion that to have nominated the article for deletion was to have committed vandalism. Nominations for deletion, generally, I think, inamsuch as they abide by process, are not to be considered vandalism; to make a suggestion to the Wikipedia community as to the proper disposition of an article and to await the reaching of a consensus by the community writ large seems nearly diametrically opposite to vandalism. Moreover, notwithstanding that I think the provisios as to what is vandalism are too exclusive (they do, of course, seem to reflect a consensus of users, though), the "What vandalism is not" section of WP:VAN would surely seem to include such tasks as tagging an article for deletion under the (mistaken) belief that its subject is non-notable. Finally, I don't think that the tagging of an article one minute after its creation is anything about which to be upset; whilst one may think it best for him/her to wait for an article to develop, surely such waiting is not necessary and can be counterproductive (non-notable bios, hoaxes, etc., quickly disappear from "new pages" and are picked up by Wikipedia mirror sites, incentivizing the creation of such pages). The worst-case scenario, of course, in this case, would have been that, in the absence of an expanded article, the Barnes article was deleted; someone might easily have recreated it, then, and simply added information sufficient to establish notability on the first edit. Joe 22:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- **Certain college sports are pretty big here, basketball being one of the more prominent. (Games are televised, and teams can have thousands of fans, some of whom often aren't even associated with the college for which the team plays.) And (according to Kinu) Barnes is a coach for a Div I team, which is the highest and most prestigious division in the NCAA. Hbackman 01:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - ***See also Current sports events, where NCAA sports are often featured. Joe 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (G7, author requested deletion). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quadlings

[edit]

nn blog. It has been around for 9 days. It is advertising, possible vanity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banzai Media

[edit]

appears to be nn company. 740 google hits, but these are for "Team Banzai Media Corporation" which is another company in Texas. Pity there is no speedy for nn business.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red this ever

[edit]

Non-notable, does not meet standards at Wikipedia:Notability (music).


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Gebharra/Template:test

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Angr/talk 20:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellin_Hockey_League

[edit]

DeleteThis article lifts material from the National Hockey League to create an article of a fictional league. Capsgm2002 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Mushroom (Talk) 06:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rebel alliance(band)

[edit]

Disputed PROD. Reason on original prod: No explanation of nobility, fails WP:Music み使い Mitsukai 05:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 09:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolhouse Earth

[edit]

I tagged this for speedy as advertising, but the creator of the page appended a bit more info, added the "hangon" tag, and noted on the talk page an intent to modify the page such that it was no longer advertising (albeit ostensibly with eleemosynary aims). I removed the speedy tag but nevertheless believe the article, inasmuch as it references a non-notable organization (to-wit, a Google search returns many hits, but none--as far as I can tell--to this project) and seems destined to remain advertising (since there don't seem to be any organizational accomplishments of one might write), should be deleted. Delete Joe 05:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I may not be able to address the concerns that give rise to this recommendation. Although I might concede that the organization in question is non-notable, I wonder if the absence of Google results is in itself, evidence of that. I will clearly describe here the current state of the organization, and may ultimately concede that an article in Wikipedia is not merited. But I have a sense that the presence of such an article will serve both the organization in question and Wikipedia. The organization is currently formed by fewer than a dozen individuals and has just been newly formed. So accomplishment of note is as yet undelivered.
There are three objectives I have with respect to submission of this item. The first is to provide a clean place in the public commons that identifies the mission and scope of the organization Schoolhouse Earth. In this place, public comment is invited and open access is available both for endorsement or concern. A secondary (and somewhat unstated) objective is to publicly invite commentary about namespace conflict. We can find no significant evidence of an organization that is using this name and that has these objectives. The appearance in Wikipedia will help to unearth any prior claims to the name that we have not yet identified. The third objective is (secondarily again, and certainly) that of raising public exposure of the organization and its mission. It cannot help but happen that if we lucidly explain the mission of this organization, that there will be many who wish to express support either through contribution of their efforts or other resources. This is not our direct aim with this article, but it is inevitably a side-effect.
I alluded to the idea that the article may serve Wikipedia goals as well. Perhaps this is in an indirect way, but it is an intention of the organization in question both to utilize Wikipedia content in its curriculum, but also to create curriculum that has learners participate in wikipedia as content editors and providers.
This is what I'm thinking about the whole thing. --Agentv 06:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Doc ask? 11:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

[edit]

Full of original research, many sources are unverifiable, doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Furthermore, constant edit warring. Constant problems without resolution. Level of notability doesn't merit this activity. I wrote the bulk of this article and previously fought to keep it. There will never be an objective version in current condition as all editors (for and against) are too biased and too polarized. Hamsacharya dan 18:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)c[reply]

Note The three delete votes above were all entered by 82.151.241.186 (talk · contribs). Fan1967 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've stricken out these copycat votes to make clear that they should be invalidated. It seems like the proper thing to do. If that is incorrect policy, my apologies. Hamsacharya dan 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a thread like this one, where so many of the votes are so dubious, I don't think it matters. They weren't going to count for anything anyway. Fan1967 03:02, 15 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 03:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syllable (operating system)

[edit]

Given a {{prod}} which was removed without comment. As noted there, no claim to notability or satifsying our guidelines for inclusion of software.
brenneman{T}{L} 06:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (CSD G4) by User:Alex Bakharev — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin rimdjonok

[edit]

Clearly non-notable vanity (and yet another confirmation of Geogre's Law, though there are some claims that could be construed as attempts to establish notability. Speedy delete (db-bio) tag was removed by creator. dbtfztalk 06:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridal Gala™

[edit]

Delete. Deprodded by author without reason. Reads like spam. Link is not functional--Porturology 08:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labelled bottles

[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 keep. Mailer Diablo 03:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippuristanol and Jerry Pelletier

[edit]

Delete. Crystal ball. When this thing beats cancer, we'll repost it. The discoverer will be notable then as well. -the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 07:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:DakotaKahn. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 09:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pembadorjee

[edit]

Appears to be nothing more than an itinerary for a specific company's pre-planned vacation/tour. Likely an advertisement. Icarus 07:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~Linuxerist L / T 08:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Shanel 02:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Olsen

[edit]

Definitely notable - but someone made a mistake here. The guy's name is Drew Olson [11] - and he has an article with the exact same details under that name. Seems logical to delete this one.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 15:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sayanhya Roy

[edit]

Google kills off any chance of notability[12].


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raziq Rauf

[edit]

Does not sound notable to me. Autobiography. 542 google hits. Thue | talk 09:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, drownedinsound is a notable publication, but he's not a core contributor ([13]), and this is an autobiography. —This unsigned comment was added by Lankiveil (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 Speedy delete as copyvio, then Redirect to Mogliamante —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 07:32Z

Wifemistress

[edit]

Info ripped directly from IMDB, with a bit of personal commentary (using the first person, no less) thrown in. Icarus 09:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous People With A.D.D

[edit]

Copy & paste job form the linked sites, which are not commercial and some text has been added, so not strictly copyvio. But they are not reliable sources. We have a list of fictional chracters with ADHD, but I did not see a list which duplicates this. On the other hand, without careful sourcing it is a minefield. Just zis Guy you know? 12:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No inconsistency fomr me - you'll see I voted deleted on the speculative list as well. But that was speculation taken from a published source, this is speculation taken from a Comcast homepage and a semi-commercial activist website selling product listings (i.e. not even in the same postal district as WP:RS), and then represented as fact. Just zis Guy you know? 23:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with surprise ending/plot twist

[edit]

Inherently POV list (what constitutes a surprise ending anyway?)... uncited, unexplained collection of titles, original research, listcruft, kill it with a stick. — Mar. 20, '06 [12:47] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Keep and rename I believe that this would be the wisest solution because 1) I wanted to rename it anyway, 2) I don't actually know what Citing is so if someone could do that for me it would be much obliged and 3) I don't think the /plot twist bit is valid. So I (the author) say rename it. FreemDeem 16:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Every film with a surprise ending or plot twist? How could this be kept up-to-date, consise and research-friendly? What constitutes a surprise, anyway? Potential POV violation inherent in the nature of the article.  (aeropagitica)  17:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --kingboyk 17:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft per above. FreemDeem, see WP:CITE for an explanation on citing. And no one will heed your comment very much if you don't say to what you want the article to be renamed. Sandstein 17:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmaintainable, POV, list that is not WP:V... unless someone is willing to stand around outside movie theaters, take a poll to prove that greater than 50% of people seeing a particular movie were actually surprised by a so-called "plot twist" or "surprise ending", and then publish the results for peer review in a reputable 3rd party publication so we have a WP:V sourcing to back up the labeling of something as a "plot twist" or "surprise ending". In that case I'd be willing to change my opinion. IMO, too many "plot twists" are painfully obvious from the time the opening credits stop rolling to anyone with rudimentary cognitive abilities to make this a designation that can be seen as NPOV (see also The Village). --Isotope23 18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; inherent POV and verification problems as to what constitutes a surprise (i.e., A Beautiful Mind, I believe I know to what the author is alluding, but I was hardly "surprised" by it.) I hardly consider the IMDb page listed above to be a reliable source, because a majority of that information (including the keywords) is also user submitted. --Kinu t/c 19:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That the IMDb list of surprise endings is very different from this one, missing many listed here, should only further indicate that this is too POV. Problems with movie predictability and quality would also spoil intended surprise endings, further complicating the matter. -- Jugalator 13:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --66.71.31.62 16:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Copyright violation, listed on the Copyright problems page. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosario Isasi

[edit]

Tagged as repost but previous deletion was speedy, not through AfD as far as I can tell. The previous deletion comment indicates amusement. Seems to be copy & paste from [15] (not commercial so not speedy copyvio material), scores <500 Ghits and appears to be promotion of a non-notable individual in support of the agenda she espouses. Just zis Guy you know? 13:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zboard

[edit]

Advertisement. Used to have a whole paragraph listing games for which keysets were available. Most incoming links consist of "There is a Zboard available for the PC version this game". Need I say more? Drat (Talk) 13:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom.Bjones 13:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castul scale

[edit]

Only references on Google come from Wikipedia or mirrors. No info on author or publication date (if any) of these novels. Bjones 13:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Bogganing

[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 merge/redirect --W.marsh 15:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking DRM

[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. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relenta

[edit]

Created by Relenta (talk · contribs), company scores 745 Ghits most of which are press rleeases and announcements. No evidence of significance, user base, innovation, major clients or any of the other things which mark the difference between an article and an advertiseement. I call WP:VSCA. User's other edits include adding Relenta to some other articles and creating four categories, Application service provider, Web application, Webmail and Contact manager, each of which had precisely one entry - Relenta. Just zis Guy you know? 14:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norada Corporation

[edit]

Looks a lot like spam. "Norada Corporation" scores about 750 Ghits, with Wikipedia second on the list (not a good sign). Has been tagged for prod and contested, so bringing to AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Trevorrow

[edit]

I do not believe the patent claim in this article is correct - a google search for the text stated leads to two patents by Delphion (US6028835, US6046973), neither of which mention Trevorrow. No other claim for notability is made. In short, we need to ensure this article is not a vanity hoax. Average Earthman 14:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing Passwords

[edit]

Original research, reposted from article creator's website (link is in the article), includes information on actual passwords of real users. Topic exists at Password cracking. Mangojuice 14:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Injection by Susam Pal

[edit]

Original research; article reposted from author's web site [16], article title inappropriate. Another article on this topic already exists: SQL injection. Mangojuice 14:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eflatun

[edit]

It's made up of two (apparently unconnected) dictionary definitions of names in other (poorly or un-) specified languages. No obvious room for expansion ionto encyclopædia article. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematic masturbation

[edit]

Neologism, unverifiable, POV, nonsense Stlemur 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yardcore

[edit]

Protologism. Can find no evidence of notability. Delete. Fang Aili 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Rmhermen. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto David Hepler

[edit]

Speedy delete, nonsense. {{nonsense}} tag removed with comment "Keep this article in honor of all the Daveists out there" in the article. Weregerbil 16:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation respelling key

[edit]

Conflicts with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation), Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 17:36 Z

  • Delete—my request. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 17:36 Z
  • Keep. There is no conflict with Original research, Verifiability, or Citing sources: This is a guide, as as such is self-defining. It no more needs cited sources than a table of contents does. Self reference is generally a problem because it is unprofessional, but this isn't the case with a pronunciation key: Guidelines such as this are standard in print encyclopedias such as the EB. As for Wikipedia's pronunciation guideline, these issues are covered in the key's talk page: No one has yet come up with a way to represent English in the IPA in a dialect-neutral way, so the IPA has resulted in edit wars over "cultural imperialism". Also, many people are more familiar with this kind of system than the IPA. Think of middle-school kids in the USA, for example. The IPA should always be used as well, of course, but this extra info is helpful, which is something we should always keep in mind. kwami 20:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless MichaelZ can explain his reasoning in more detail. Kwami's justification seems sensible to me. The Singing Badger 21:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also refer to what Wikipedia is not: not an instruction manual: "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. . . . Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate"
    This is not an encyclopedia article, although it could have a place in the help: or Wikipedia: namespace. However, I am skeptical that it represents any Wikipedia policy or conventional practice. —Michael Z. 2006-03-21 01:35 Z
As for Wikipedia not being an instruction manual, by your reading of the policy Wikipedia should have no pronunciation guides at all. However, these are clearly acceptable and are not considered "instruction".
And no, it's not an article at all, it is a key, just as we have in any other encyclopedia. (The pronunciation guide in my print encyclopedia appears at the begining of volume I, separate from the articles.) I would be fine with this in help or namespace as long as articles could still link to it once it's there, but I have a feeling that people would object to that as "self reference". kwami 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a key like this wouldn't belong in the article namespace, and I think there are templates made for references to help pages like this. But the other question is which articles refer to this key? Is this respelling method used anywhere in Wikipedia? —Michael Z. 2006-03-21 17:36 Z
Check the 'what links here' link. kwami 19:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after looking at 'what links here', I'm wondering if this is a particular respelling standard that's used in astronomy? If so, then it may be appropriate to offer it alongside IPA (which is already the recommendation) in astronomy articles. The "key" article is lacking references and context. —Michael Z. 2006-03-21 21:22 Z
The purpose of the manual of style is to avoid haphazard pronunciation spellings. However, this key is intended to avoid that problem as well, by making the pronunciation spellings regular and consistant. The manual of style causes its own problems because people fight over whose dialect to use as the approved pronunciation. This system avoids that problem, and having both it and the IPA addresses the needs of more people. kwami 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is not redundant, but just mistitled or mislocated. (Or misremembered? haha) English phonology (at least can we please refer to articles by the correct entry?) delves into dialectical issues and doesn't address phonetic respelling. Also, as pointed out, there's no one way to unambiguously transfer a pronunciation into IPA: the beauty of the idea of this article is a very elegant way of doing that. I'd recommend that at the worst, the namespace idea happens. I'd much rather see it developed more to provide a non-IPA method of pronunciation transcription that could be useful throughout linguistics and languages pages, classical literature and history pages, biology, and so on. Every page of my oldest Webster's has a similar pronunciation guide on every page. Another advantage is that this system (similiar to what most newspapers and magazines would use) only requires one special character, the unambiguous schwa, [ə]. I'd rather see us first work to edit the article to address MLA's POV that it's "not very well written". Then let's rewrite it so it is, and make it so it could be used throughout the English language Wiki.--Sturmde 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

[edit]

Would it be acceptable to everyone to move this key to wikipedia:help or wikipedia:namespace and still allow the actual articles to link to it? kwami 05:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be more acceptable. After it's moved we can address the question of whether it should exist at all. —Keenan Pepper 03:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fudge the issue. Would it be acceptable or not? kwami 05:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue against it existing at all, so no. —Keenan Pepper 05:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passy Gardens

[edit]

Just another building(?) Doesn't state notability, and I seriously doubt that it has any. Eivindt@c 18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russia naming issue

[edit]

Found in the cleanup backlog: an unsourced, NPOV, possibly original research article claiming a conspiracy to rename Russia as Muscovy. Unencyclopedic. Merge anything verifiable to Etymology of Rus and derivatives and delete. Alba 18:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Despite the fact that there may be some correct facts in this article, I see no basis for the existence of the article itself. Just for the record, can someone state in a neutrally-worded sentence or two, what exactly is the "Russia naming issue"? Citation of at least one respectable source would help, too. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 19:29 Z

The issue is the existance of the claim that the self-appelation of the "Rus" rooted names (Russia, Rossia, Rus' Velikaya, etc) was "stolen" by the "Muscovites" for the political purposes, that the "correct" names were and remain only Muscovites and Muscovy (which I don't disagree, these were also correct names) and the Russia and Rus' are incorrect and stolen. That "they" "stole" or "attempted to steal" or "to monopolize" the legacy of Rus', that ony we (whatever it means) are related to Rus' and Muscovites owe their legacy only to Mongolic or Finno-Ugric tribes, that "we are more Rus'ian" then them" (see this article in Ukrainian or in Russian for a good review).
Finally, if you go to uk-wiki, you can find users who deny to call Russin things as "Russian" even today and agree to only call it Muscovite (see this). --Irpen 20:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so this article is about a particular rhetorical stance used in a debate about the lineage or "legitimacy" of the Ukrainian and Russian nations? Does it really justify more than a mention in etymology of Rus'? Perhaps it is part of a larger topic about the rhetoric of national self-importance?
I just don't see the merit of analyzing a name-calling match in too much detail. English-language historians tend to document the etymology and usage of names like Rus’, Russia, etc, and the social and political histories of the peoples involved. They may mention that some argument features prominently in somebody's national rhetoric, perhaps mentioning prominent scholars who have held particular related views, but stay well away from evaluating the relative merits of such arguments, as, I think, should we. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 20:27 Z
All I am saying is that this is a valid issue and such cleaned up article will not harm and will cover a legitimate, although a rhetorical, point. I think it doesn't qualify for AfD. I would consider the etymology article much more important. Note that both were started by the same user (now seem retired) rather than some troll. --Irpen 20:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if someone would rewrite this so it doesn't sound like someone's personal grudge, then I may change my vote. But as currently written, it's not a suitable article. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 23:16 Z

Until then it should be POVed with a tag that I find totally justifiable. However, the POVish presentation in itself is the reason for correction and not deletion provided that the topic is legitimate. --Irpen 23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Bellz

[edit]

right at the edge of notability per WP:MUSIC. His name, but nothing else, has been mentioned in a couple of newspaper articles. 153 google hits. Page reads like WP:VAIN violation, but this seems close enough to the edge to request debate. No vote. Alba 18:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 03:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha

[edit]

Delete. The Leadership of the Order of the Collar organization did not authorize the writing of the article and wish it to be removed.In addition, the content was taken from their own published history without permission. Inpectore 18:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep for now. AfD is not the proper venue here, as this is an encyclopedic subject. The wishes of the article's subject are not relevant unless the article is in violation of applicable law or Wikipedia policies. Google searches for random blocks of text indicate no copyright violation of online sources. If you think this is in violation of copyright on printed text, please proceed as per WP:CP. Sandstein 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sandstein is exactly right. Gwernol 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sandstein Bucketsofg 20:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the author of the article and I also wish it to be deleted. I'm not claiming it is a violation of copyright. Rather, I am saying I was unauthorized to write this article in the first place. Am I to understand that after voluntarily writing this article it now MUST remain on Wikipedia against my wishes? Inpectore 21:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. WP:OWN. What do you mean, "authorized"? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 21:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly clear, yes, by submitting an article to Wikipedia you have liscensed it under the GFDL, which means that you, among other things, have lost the right to insist that it be removed from Wikipedia or any other publication which complies with the conditions of the GFDL., so this article MAY remain here against your wishes. (It can also be removed if the consensus of the community is that it does not fit the needs of the encyclopedia.) No vote. Dsmdgold 02:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly someone not wanting this page is not grounds for deletion. I confess I'm struggling with the lack of sources. I'm not suspicious - I just like good sources. The ones here are fairly circular, as the first links back to wikipedia (strange for a page they want deleted). I think that any statement without sources should be removed. Anyone know how to access charity commision lists? Nevermind - I'll take it to the talk page.Obina 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because the 'leadership' asking it to be removed is not a reason to remove it. Rewrite anything that's a copyvio. I'm rather sceptical about the whole thing though. Robin Johnson 11:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite anything that is a copyright violation. I'm sorry that you have written something that you were not "authorized" to write but this is not the forum to debate that Nigelthefish 16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice - is this link on the page? Can any bilingual type tell if this all supports what the page says? Oops sorry i know take it to talk. I agree Keep.Obina 23:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if to keep. Agree with above that an article is not owned by any one person and that mere wish to delete by one author of article or the subject of the article is not enough. But we have in the past acquiesced to requests by sole authors to remove content even if it had been GFDL (I remember a case about an image of someone's wife and the Koran, I believe) as a matter of human courtesy. What would be helpful is to know to what extent Inspectore is the only "real" author of the article - there are others in the contribution history, but a lot of the changes seem minor or removals of paragraphs. Isn't there some visual tool to see the authorship split of an article? If Inspectore is the near-only author and he wants it to go, I'm inclined to delete. If there has been active collaboration, then not. Martinp 01:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Ramkeesoon

[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BIO; also advertisement/vanity. PROD contested by author without comment. Sandstein 18:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The best part of the article is that, assuming arguendo that the author is the subject, he praises himself for...modesty! Joe 18:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian view of soul

[edit]

Can anyone tell what this article is about? Unintelligible, possible original research. Delete. Fang Aili 18:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uterosexual

[edit]

Neologism, 12 Google hits, contested PROD. Sandstein 19:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand what this word has to do with "metrosexual". It's not defined as a female parallel to "metrosexual" at all (the female equivalent of "metrosexual" would be a straight woman who has the fashion and grooming sense that lesbians have, whatever that would mean). Catamorphism 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not what Wikipedia is for. If 'uterosexuals' are not already a notable phenomenon, known by that name, the article has no place here. And if there's nothing but a definition, it should go in a dictionary. Robin Johnson 12:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change your own comments after people have replied to them! Anyway, Retrosexual is tagged saying it has been AfD'd and the result was to merge with Metrosexual - and now I think that's the best idea for this article, too. Robin Johnson 15:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zac German

[edit]

A friend of mine wrote this article, and this in a kid at my school. There's no need for such an article, and I propose it be deleted, mainly due to the fact that it is completely false. Hurricanehink 19:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely true and is intended to inform others of Zac German's fame. While not well known to the general public, German was still incredibly influencial in many groups across the world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.185.239 (talk • contribs)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. This article is completely true. I know both Zac and the man who wrote it. Believe me, if you know Zac at all, you'll realize that this article is pure truthiness. All those who don't agree are simply jealous. -Hurricanebrantley,lawlz/roflcopters 141.150.185.226 18:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say it's true? There's no sources, and I know the kid who wrote it! Hurricanehink 19:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you know who wrote it, what does that have to do with the validity of the article? For instance you write many articles yourself. German is not well published and news is mainly transferred through word of mouth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.185.239 (talk • contribs)
Note The above IP address belongs to the Ocean City, NJ Public School System. Fan1967 19:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic marker karate co.

[edit]

Looks like patent nonsense, but is just a no-name band. PROD contested without comment. Sandstein 19:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xess (3rd nomination)

[edit]

Twice before this article has been nominated for AFD. The article was kept weakly on the basis the article could be improved, if the article was cleaned up and citations were provided. However, nearly a month later the article has remained untouched. The band when searched for, has not won the award they proclaim they have. Nor does the band have anything to do with the musical styles of Gothic Rock or Gothic Metal. The band is also not well known in their own country. The article fails WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, and fails Notablity. As such, considering the time given for the article to be cleaned up, the article should be deleted for Non-Notablity and Advertising purposes. Ley Shade 19:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The logic that it was kept twice, we should keep it does not apply here since the things suggested still have not been done. The article is going nowhere, and is about a non notable band.Obina 23:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xess—1st nom April 2005, (Kept). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xess (2nd nomination)—2nd nom January 2006, (Deleted).[18] Recreated March 16 2006 [19] in a single edit (possible copyvio?). Not a single reference. I am inclined to agree with Leyasu. Will revise opinion if compelling new information provided. —Encephalon 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Update: I've tried to search for more information on this band because I want to give the article a fair shake, but again I've been unable to find reliable, independent references from which to source the claims being made here. The paucity of sources suggests to me that the subject is not yet of sufficient note to be able to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and related rules. That is to say, it cannot (for now) be treated in encyclopedic fashion. The best I could find was this, which IMO is inadequate as a source, to say nothing of the fact that it is unable to support most of the article. The claims, even taken at face value, do not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. The two claims to some notability are:[reply]
At the end of 2003 in the competition of alternative music bands “White Devils” organized by the publishing label “Dangus”, XESS was acclaimed as the best gothic/industrial band in Lithuania, and
On 25 09 2004 with their song „Ikask man!“ (Bite Me!) XESS played live in the national TV show “Lithuanian TV Top 10”
Neither meet WP:MUSIC. Therefore I think deletion is justified. However, on closer reading of the nominator's comment, I find several remarks about which I have no knowledge, and therefore cannot endorse. Regards —Encephalon 22:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-black metal (2nd nomination)

[edit]

This page has been recreated by its first originator after already having been deleted after afd. Is a bad clone of the Avant garde metal article, and is also advertising and glorifcation of a minor set of bands. Also coining a term of which does not exist, as these bands are either essential to Black Metal or have nothing to do with it. Also in violation of AFD that the originator has recreated the article after it was deleted. Ley Shade 19:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 02:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circus metal (4th nomination)

[edit]

Article has been strongly deleted three times by AFD, and has been recreated by the members of a Yahoo Chat Group, who have admitted to coining the term to advertise their favourite bands and yahoo group. This is in Violation of WP:BOT, especially after recreating the article after it has been strongly deleted three times by AFD. Ley Shade 19:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camille balaubar

[edit]

From The translation desk, where nobody translated it. Entry from there follows. Delete unless somebody makes a decent article out of it. Kusma (討論) 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. First sentence: Si Camille Balaubar ay isang halimaw nangangain ng tao. Kusma (討論) 02:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagalog, most likely. "Camille Balaubar" sounds like a name and gets no hits. I'm thinking vanity, or some variation on "for a good time call..." --Diderot 07:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it might be Malay instead of Tagalog. Kusma (討論) 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 16:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cozido à Portuguesa

[edit]

Obvious case in which a transwiki is needed Icarus 19:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it's just a recipe. If an actual article can be written about it, then that would be fine. But the proper place for recipes is in the Wikibooks cookbook, not wikipedia. --Icarus 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (CSD A4) by User:Trevor macinnis. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 23:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microshit

[edit]

The article was a former speedy deletion candidate, the template {{Db-attack}} was added, but i don't understand why. I changing this to a AfD. --Off! 20:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list_of_punk_cities

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, includes accounting for unsigned comments. W.marsh 16:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayberry Mall

[edit]

Non-notable local mall. See also Eden Mall and Pennrose Mall, which were also previously nominated for AfD. Note that like those other two articles, this article was created by and edited by the North Carolina vandal (using multiple sockpuppets), which however is not in itself an argument for deletion. -- Curps 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - the recent spate of mall AfD's is an example of an anti-mall cultural bias, as are any anti-mall precedents in deletion policy. I strongly feel that Wikipedia is being kept from covering many massive, notable, quasi-permanent commercial institutions (many of which are important features in the lives of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people - entire communities!) simply because of cultural bias. I am not a huge mall-lover myself, but most large malls are more notable than many of the small museums that wikipedia covers, and are treated differently mainly because they are seen as distasteful or dislikeable. Wikipedia should not censor or delete an entire category of information (we already cover a number of malls), information that is relevant and important to an electronic encyclopedia, simply because some people find that subject a bit crass. Covering individual malls is not comparable to, say, covering individual Wal-Mart stores (which should not be done), because each mall is different. The layout, location, and composition of a mall is important geographic and cultural information. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously we should be open-minded to any attempt to document notability for any subject. Without passing judgement on the question of whether malls as a whole are unfairly discriminated against in wikipedia, we have to decide about individual articles about individual malls. I see nothing in this article that suggests that this mall warrants an article. Bucketsofg 22:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this mall is less notable than many that have recently been targeted in the AfD blitz, but I think that it is still notable, as it includes 23 stores. Also, being located in a small community, it is likely a commercial center of that community - and, as such, as important as a local state park or something on that idea. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bucketsofg. Slowmover 22:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, malls are not inherently notable and this one has nothing special. I know I shouldn't keep firing my mousegun into the artillery barrage of Wikipedia holy wars like this, I just can't help myself. We need a Wikiproject to save people like me from myself. Lord Bob 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' as per above ~Linuxerist L / T 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the town's article would be my choice here, but if that absolutely cannot happen then Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I guess I'm puzzled over why Wikipedia needs a two sentence entry on a shopping mall, especially since the shopping mall already has an official site on the web. I can't think of a single compelling reason to keep this entry. Brian G. Crawford 23:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the town it is in, since malls don't tend to pick themselves up and run off to another town when they're bored. Average Earthman 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you've seen one mall, you've seen 'em all. Denni ☯ 01:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article for the town. BryanG 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. is right about there being a bias against commercial, contemporary or pop culture related topics, but this is a mall in a town with less then 9,000 people in a county with only about 70,000. I don’t think there enough people for a major mall. It provably belongs in the article on the town it’s in. Seano1 06:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge notable, though not as much as Eden Mall or especially Pennrose Mall.Reidkins 02:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just being a mall isn't enough for notability, and this doesn't claim anything beyond it. - Andre Engels 09:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town square. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic. -- JJay 11:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many Main Street or Town Squares moved from town to town in the past? They should be merged because they are a feature of the town - saying they warrant seperate articles is like saying that we should have a separate article about Pele's right and left feet because he used them to score so many goals. Average Earthman 13:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand your analogy with Pele, however I do believe that, to a large extent, Main Streets and Town Squares have moved- into the malls. As you know, malls also drain customers from much larger areas than the immediate towns they are located in. Finally, I guess we could merge every article on a building, highway, school, museum, stadium, team, mall, company, etc. into a jumbo article on the town in which they are located. While we are at it, we should probably merge every player bio into the sports team they play for. Then when that becomes unmanageable, we can edit all the discussions of these things in the Town/Team articles down to single line mentions. Then we can give up on trying to be a comprehensive, internet-age encyclopedia. -- JJay 14:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • They didn't move, they were replaced (unless someone actually dug up the entire street, moved it to the edge of town, and put a roof on it). It's like Pele retiring and someone else playing for Brazil. I think the analogy is that a particular small mall, or a main street, is part of one specific town and no other (in the way that nobody other than Pele has ever scored a goal by kicking the ball with Pele's foot, so no matter how impressed you are with Pele's foot, or how many times Pele's foot propelled the ball into the back of the net, it's still Pele's foot so doesn't have its own article, as you can't really say that much about it, and what you can say relates directly to Pele). Very large malls have a life and reputation of their own of course, but this isn't a very large mall. 128.243.220.21 11:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added info concerning the infamous murder that took place at Mayberry. It's somewhat ironic given the name of the mall and the fact that the murder weapon was bought in the mall shortly before the crime took place. -- JJay 21:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a collection of stores is neither encyclopaedic nor notable. JJay's arguments are a wonderful encouragement to improve the mall article, but hardly provide reason why each and every mall is either encyclopaedic or notable. It should be mentioned in the article on the town, and maybe even its own setion, but is not worth an article of its own. Wikipedia is not Everything2. Proto||type 13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most malls and other individual builings. If a building has a particular significance or history, that's another issue, but having articles on buildings merely because they exist is the cruftiest cruft that ever did cruft. Friday (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely.Apriyay 15:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    user's first edit. Lord Bob 16:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep great article. may need expansion though!
    unsigned vote by Evil Kro, his second edit. Lord Bob 01:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am utterly astounded that anyone could look at Wikipedia and think it has an anti-pop-culture bias. I wouldn't say it has an anti-mall bias either, but that's probably much harder to determine. Anyone who wants to discuss notability of buildings in general should look at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_buildings. So far consensus seems to be to apply WP:CORP to them. To me, trying to create and maintain a list of which stores are at which mall would be a project for WikiPhonebook, if there was such a thing. Friday (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What in the article makes it encylopedic? Vegaswikian 06:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Encyclopedias are reference books that deal with all fields of knowledge (the word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education). Since Wikipedia doesn't have very many size constraints, we can include a lot of stuff. Also, I'm not sure it's worth destroying someone else's work and alienating that person--who could be a contributor to other articles as well--over an issue as uncertain as notability. Something increadibly notable to a physicist may be non-notable to a chemist, for example. In other words, I don't see the point of this vote. What will deleting the article help?--Primetime 21:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Ivermee

[edit]

Delete as non-notable. Although what is claimed in relation to Make Poverty History is true (see [21]), nothing in the article seems to me to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. htonl 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a biographical account of the life of a talented and well-known if young, individual who is sure to become a leading figure in Politics in years to come. Removing this article will only mean someone having to submit another in the future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Beaumont (talk • contribs)

You are free to recreate the article after he has done something notable. There are tens of millions of promising young people who haven't done anything notable yet. This is one of them. Fan1967 23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Change (software)

[edit]

Delete. Simply an advertisment with links to reviews and no content. └ VodkaJazz/talk┐ 22:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but since this article is actually empty as opposed to the other two, I would prefer to keep them seperate to have this article deleted faster. You could propose AfD, linking to this page as evidence of the companying trying to use Wikipedia as a billboard.└ VodkaJazz/talk┐ 18:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 03:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Magyar

[edit]

Speedy delete: Obviously non notable. 100 or so generally unrelated Google hits. Mrtea (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, forgot that we can speedy vanity aricles now. Should've just tagged this one. Mrtea (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 08:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Leslie

[edit]

nn nightclub director. I initially marked it for prod, but the prod tag was removed. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge merge tags are on article, merge should probably be discussed a bit more on the talk page(s) to decide where this is going, but consensus seems to be for merging somewhere. W.marsh 15:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani black metal

[edit]

Completely non-notable band scene, comprised of only non-notable bands Spearhead 23:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic_wrestling

[edit]

Local wrestling is not notable, vanity. Tredmen88 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noctis Night Life

[edit]

Delete; advertisement for a website GregoryWeir 23:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_20&oldid=1116878715"