Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 22 March 24 >

Purge server cache

March 23[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 keep expanded article. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn bag[edit]

I Prodded; removed by author. Rationale was: "not-notable definition." If you were to make an ordered list of words or phrases that don't require an article, I think this one would place rather high--Fuhghettaboutit 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn definition. nihil 00:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't really need its own article. Royboycrashfan 00:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to popcorn since popcorn often comes in a bag. :-) Strong keep, now that the article has been expended, a la soap dispenser (which is also on AfD). The tautology in the first sentence ("A popcorn bag is, as the name implies, a bag from which popcorn is eaten...") hurts though. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Booking563 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We may take it for granted, but this is a verifiable, real item. We may know all we need to know about the subject, but sometime, somewhere, someone might not. We should record what we know about popcorn bags here for posterity and to add it to the sum of human knowledge. youngamerican (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if someone expands the article (perhaps on the history of popcorn bags?); Weak delete as dicdef or Merge to popcorn if left as a stub --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete and redirect to Popcorn. I'm completely baffled by the keep votes above. "Popcorn bag" is completely self-explanatory. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 01:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Popcorn unless there's really much more to say. I doubt there's enough to write about the bags that couldn't be on that page instead. -- Mithent 01:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep now as the article has been expanded. -- Mithent 03:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would be interested in reading an article on those; who invented them, for example. StuRat 01:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per StuRat and youngamerican. A popcorn bag isn't simply a bag that holds popcorn; it's a notable invention of the post-microwave era. --Allen 01:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I expanded the stub a bit to give it context and make it something informative to someone that wanted to know what popcorn used to be served in once upon a time. I will add photos too, if that would help. youngamerican (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I've expanded the section on microwave popcorn bags to discuss the susceptor-driven heat distribution that they pioneered. Ziggurat 01:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This hurts my head, but I'm voting to keep expanded article now that its importance has been demonstrated and the relevant patent cited. One tiny little kernel of importance per Ziggurat (and despite youngamerican). Pass the synthetic butter substitute. Barno 01:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Am I supposed to take that personally? heh youngamerican (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I can't beleive I'm voting keep on this, but there you go. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since expansion it is notable (of sorts). Rockpocket 01:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable in my opinion. With further expansion, it will be a valid article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing in this article that couldn't either be deleted or incorporated into popcorn. Paul 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Barno and PS2pcGAMER. BryanG 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the microwave-type bags are a pretty interesting little piece of technology if you think about it. I'd like to see this be an article but I think it might be better to rename to Popcorn packaging so as to include buckets, foldy boxes, and those Jiffy Pop frying-pan things too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The technology of microwave popcorn bags may be fodder for an article (though in its present incarnation I think it should be merged with popcorn). However, there is nothing notable about popcorn bags of the everyday variety. The entire focus should thus be on the history and technology involved with that topic; the article should not masquerade as a general article on popcorn bags and should be renamed "Microwave popcorn bag technology" or something similar. Think about it this way, would there be any reason to keep if the article was lolipop wrapper? Generic popcorn bags are still the analogue of lolipop wrapper. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to popcorn. And merge the microwave technology into that article as well.--Yannick 05:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If content is merged, the article must be kept as a redirect to preserve attribution for Wikipedia's license. -- Kjkolb 06:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly legitimate article. dbtfztalk 07:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it looks good now. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not something I would have thought to write about, but interesting and very informative. The fact that there's at least one patent for a popcorn bag design makes this a notable product to me. Grandmasterka 08:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good info source!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yet another disendorsement for nominating the "non-notable". Who would have guessed that popcorn bags could turn out to be so noteworthy? You live and learn. At least you do if deletionists don't succeed in barring articles about the things you're learning about from Wikipedia. Grace Note 09:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's a bit mean. How do you know this happy state of affairs didn't result from the article being listed for deletion? --kingboyk 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the literal truth in this case. The original article should have been deleted - it was a blatant dicdef - but got improved instead. Ziggurat 18:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I still think it's marginal, but notable enough. Lankiveil 10:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as it stands. --kingboyk 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ziggurat. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to popcorn. Still not notable on its own, despite the vast improvement in the article. The best article in the world wouldn't be notable on its own if it were about me. Lord Bob 16:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Subject doesnt warrant its own article, though information is still worth recording TgC 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. Quintillion 00:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    setting aside the fact that the nom wants it deleted, this is the user's twentieth edit, of which only two have not been to either AfDs or articles on AfD, and one of which was adding a {{stub}} to somebody's userpage. Just pointing out a strangeness. Lord Bob 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original article was about one kernel's worth, if that. This is a whole bag full of tasty knowledge now. Was AfD the spur to make it better? We shall never know, but it got better in a jiffy. Keep ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to popcorn per Lord Bob. Clarinetplayer 03:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a stretch, folks. Wikipedia's not a dictionary. --Hyphen5 04:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's saying it is. Read the article. Grandmasterka 04:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 12:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The bit on the microwave bag especially is interesting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an interesting and fairly well written article. Oliver Keenan 17:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is well written erasing makes no sense Yuckfoo 03:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm impressed with the treatment of what I'd expected would have been a subject about which very little could have been written. Maxamegalon2000 16:44, 27 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. Sango123 (e) 00:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious B[edit]

Delete -real, but not notable enough in own right exolon 00:21, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night Warrior[edit]

A webcomic, found here. The site hosting it has no Alexa rank, there doesn't seem to be any sign of notability for it. What makes this website more distinct and notable about all the others? Not much by the looks of it. - Hahnchen 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night Warrior is the U.K.'s leading independant comic book. It's a unique collaboration of over a hundered artists and writers from all over the world. That in itself makes it stand out above all the others and makes it a worthy inclusion to wikipedia.

It's had some big press attention already for example it's one of the few independant webcomics to feature on Comic-Con. At it's peak it gets over a thousand unique hits per day and later in the year it's going to print.

It would seem odd to have a list of British comics or Webcomics and not have Night Warrior on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.49.56 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2006 March 24

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 (e) 00:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of writers[edit]

PROD tag removed. Article about a website that does not seem to meet WP:WEB or be otherwise verifiable. W.marsh 00:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, WP:SPAM, and WP:V. Royboycrashfan 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the reasons listed by Royboycrashfan --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, based on WP's from Mr. Crash. 124 members? Kuru talk 01:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Royboy. JoshuaZ 01:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please see this AfD's talk page for a note from the article's creator. --W.marsh 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Copied and pasted below for convenience.[reply]
  • Delete for the awful logo as WP:VSCA, per the above. Sandstein 05:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -- Astrokey44|talk 12:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • so, is my article still going to be deleted or not? If it is, tell me what rule it is braking or at least a specific reason so that I can try to fix it. Everything contaied in the article was used with direct permission from the author of the page (I also help create the site and desiged most of the graphics) including the logo and images. --Motumbis 23:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks very likely to be deleted simply because the forum isn't notable enough to merit an entry. With 122 members as of this writing, it looks unlikely that anyone who isn't directly involved in the forum would ever visit, or edit, the Wikipedia page. That means that the page would end up being forever POV and unencyclopedic (which, I submit, it is) and would be unlikely to ever meet Wikipedia's standards of quality. Get yourself a few thousand more users and a few mentions in major national or international publications and your forum may then become notable. Incidentally, I myself made the same mistake last year: I submitted a web forum I belong to with 298 users. The article was deleted. --Hyperbole 23:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To read up on the specifics of what Hyperbole is saying, please look at the links given above by Mr. Roy (that is; WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, WP:SPAM). Kuru talk 04:39, 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. W.marsh 00:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rue Dussault[edit]

Delete - NN Road - Building mentioned doesn't have it's own article. exolon 00:31, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yosh![edit]

Hosted on Comic Genesis, a free webcomics host is Yosh. You can have a look at it's sub 70 member forum here too. A google search for "yosh webcomic" (without quotes) generates less than 150 hits, and from what I see, none of them are respectable webcomic review or commentary sites. Hosted on the comicgen.com domain, it manages to capture 2% of traffic to a domain ranked at roughly 20,000. This is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:42, 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 USERFY and DELETE. Harro5 03:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arwa gunja[edit]

The subject is a non-notable author who wrote for the newspaper of New York University. While the NYU paper is well-regarded and surely more prominent than most college newspapers, the subject of this article doesn't seem to warrant a page; in any case, the entry as currently is exists is unsourced and poorly formatted and contains sundry POV comments. In view of WP:BIO, delete. Joe 00:48, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DENWO[edit]

Are there any WoW guilds that could be considered notable? ~MDD4696 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In principle, yes, it's possible. This one, delete. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 00:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRUFT. Royboycrashfan 01:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There might be notable guilds, these guys aren't. JoshuaZ 01:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wouldn't consider any WoW guilds notable (and I'm a WoW player myself). Even if there were, this would not be one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gosh, you really had me scared for a short while there: since when have they started Willy on Wheels Guilds?? LOL! - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 03:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha ha! Very amusing indeed :). ~MDD4696 03:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trying hard to imagine how a MMORPG guild would be notable in any real sense. Kuru talk 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well if the guild had done something noteworthy, like been one of the first groups to organize an economy where one could buy and sell things for real world cash, that would be noteworthy. Or if the guild had a large number of noteworthy people in it, or was very large, or it got into some interesting legal dispute. In any event, there is no evidence that this guild has done any of that. JoshuaZ 04:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Still trying to get my hands around it. If they helped usher in some unique aspect of a game or series of games (the economics suggestion above), then a mention in the description of the aspect would probably suffice, unless maybe they were consistant innovators that drove change in several games? The legal dispute one is interesting; but is the dispute notable or the guild? Just out of curiousity, and I swear I won't meddle, but are there guilds with wiki articles now? Kuru talk 00:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Here are some, and I haven't made any promise not meddle with some AfDs. Knights of the sphere (say hello to AfD) The Seven Swords (possible AfD, if notable notable for the book not for the guild), Stray Dog strut (ooh, doesn't even try to claim notability, someone should prod it). Guild Amicus (begging for an AfD also) Operation CWAL is an example of a guild that is arguably notable. Another example of a possibly notable guild The_Syndicate. JoshuaZ 00:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Twelve Prophets is not a great example; the information on their exploiting there is a bit inaccurate and not comprehensive, but I'm not in a good position to fix it, even if this guild was sufficiently notable. About the only WoW-related guild I can think of offhand that might deserve a page is Fires of Heaven but more because of their connections to several game developers, and for their well-known message boards, than for their accomplishments in WoW or Everquest specifically. But as you can see, they don't have an article (yet). Kiti 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't play, but I've heard that there are a few guilds known for using hacks and cheating extensively - I think that might be notable, as well, especially since that sort of behavior forces the developers to patch the game. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 22:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would consider a few guilds sufficiently noteworthy, but generally because they or their members have made a lasting impact on the development of the game and/or the MMORPG genre. There's some interest in seeing how developer X's experience in guild Y influenced what he did with game Z; but a page like this one which is just "we killed a lot of the big baddies in the game" isn't noteworthy or interesting to me despite playing WoW. Kiti 00:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with JoshuaZ. Treznor 04:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable gaming clan. JIP | Talk 10:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Soumyasch 10:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Lankiveil 10:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:16, 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 keep. Sango123 (e) 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zor[edit]

Disambiguation page with non-notable, fan cruft entries. Gflores Talk 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The previous AFD was apparently an {{nn-bio}}. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 01:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find myself shocked to say that I'm leaning towards keep. While the individual entries are not spectacularly notable, as a disambig it might be useful for keeping things separated. It also discourages the creation of whole articles on the subjects. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 01:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Stillnotelf --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Stillnotelf. Royboycrashfan 01:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless and potentially useful disambig page. No Guru 02:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as none of the entries is close to being notable enough for an article. We don't need disambiguation pages, or redirects, for races or characters in fiction that don't deserve an article of their own. Someone who is interested in the subject will look for the main article. -- Kjkolb 06:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is hypothetically possible that someone might think "What was the name of that book that Zor was from?" On that basis, and because Wikipedia is not paper, I'm going to vote Weak keep. --Hyperbole 23:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kaew peek. Skool sselmrah hguone. JIP | Talk 10:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, can't have enough disambig pages. Lankiveil 10:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, even if they don't deserve their own articles this page is still useful. the wub "?!" 11:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if someones looking for this they can find the right article -- Astrokey44|talk 12:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as disambg page, might be useful. --Soumyasch 12:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Stillnotelf →AzaToth 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm having a hard time figuring why a bunch of cruft suddenly becomes worth keeping as long as there's a disambiguation page. If the articles survive on their own merit, then a disambig page is meritorious. If they can't, then it isn't. RGTraynor 21:26, 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. Harro5 01:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies, manga, anime, and television shows that take place in Tokyo[edit]

The lists offers no value. Almost every movie, manga, anime, and television show in Japan has something that happens in Tokyo. There's no encyclopedic reason to keep this article. 日本穣 01:03, 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 all. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film Tycoon[edit]

This is a multiple nomination, here are the other articles nominated:

I first encountered this set of articles after seeing Cosmic Universe get unprodded. Although these articles appear in Template:Tycoon Computer Games, they are not Tycoon Computer games. These are not published software titles, instead, they are role playing gaming websites. I do not think that these forum games are notable. These articles are about the many iterations of a single game, the current iteration is The Other Film Tycoon. This game has 58 members in it's forum, and 32 players on their leaderboard. These are not popular games, at very very best they should be merged together, but I feel they should be deleted. - Hahnchen 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable role playing game website --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; only 9410 Google hits, including the phrase 'film tycoon' and Wikipedia. -- Mithent 01:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn web game. Lankiveil 10:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete the lot, forumcruft. the wub "?!" 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. All of it. Ifnord 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia is for all infomation, therefore all infomation should stay. 86.15.26.52 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While you're at it, remove from template. -- Saberwyn 10:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The popularity or relevance of the off-shoots and original game are not whats important. Whats important is wikipedia is an online encylopedia. What if someone heard Film Tycoon mentioned and wanted to read up on it? Shouldnt encyclopedias hold ALL information if at all possible? 68.4.158.160 11:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a limit to the amount of information the Wikipedia servers can hold. To ensure that the 'most important' topics get covered first, there are a series of guidelines and criterta subjects need to meet to be included. The one relevant to your online role paying games would likely be Wikipedia:Notability (websites), although Wikipedia:Notability (software) may also apply. If it can be proven, through the use of verifiable sources, that these online games meet the above, along with the more general Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, then there should be no problems in keeping the articles in some form. -- Saberwyn 11:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia must try to be as complete as possible, so also games like filmtycoon need to be at wikipedia. Also, filmtycoon is growing and when the original filmtycoon restarts it will get a lot more members and google hits . 62.145.208.215 08:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --Soumyasch 08:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's one (maybe even the) of the most populair movie sims ever.10:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)~
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Clans (computer gaming)[edit]

Mostly empty list of non-notable entities (only KoN make a claim to notability on their website, as far as I can tell). ~MDD4696 01:05, 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 redirect to Jed Davis - Liberatore(T) 13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Congregation Of Vapors[edit]

Article was contested as a CSD A7 candidate, but this article on a tribute band to the Ramones doesn't seem to show notability. If anything should be decided upon but deletion, I'd advocate a one-line mention on the Ramones' page listing the group as a tribute. But this doesn't meet WP:MUSIC unless there's some sources which are revealed. Harro5 01:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 01:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. They appear to be more than a tribute band and do have an allmusic entry, but one released single isn't enough to be notable yet. Possibly reconsider when the albums are released. the wub "?!" 11:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Jed Davis. Davis, the director of Congregation of Vapors, appears to have legitimate claim to notability. CoV doesn't seem to... yet. --Hyperbole 23:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Bliss[edit]

Nothing on the internet, the organization he was head of doesn't even have a page, no reason given for notability. Nobunaga24 01:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above. Google search brings back 106 unique hits. Royboycrashfan 01:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. bcasterline t 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable person working for a non-notable organization --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability given. JoshuaZ 01:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if verifiable. Apparently notable figure in past; Google counts are entirely inappropriate for evaluating notability in such cases. Monicasdude 14:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable per nom. Probably also unverifiable. Ifnord 20:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Harro5 21:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if someone is willing to do a cleanup and correct his position title because he did exist[2]. He was on the board of Iowa Corn-Hog Commission as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (1933-1935) and was a member of the state U.S. Department of Agriculture War Board (1941-1946). Possible a minimum of notability.--Dakota ~ ° 09:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 (e) 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phone booking[edit]

Non-notable fad, unverifiable, advertisement for its website, unencyclopedic. Looks like a sophisticated version of something made up in school one day. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:21, 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 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cora Skinner[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was a resume. Most short articles end up being a mere list of accomplishments, however, and it isn't like this is a text dump of a c.v., so I'm listing here for a notability consideration. Some of the magazines and calendars listed are notable media or commercial products, but no evidence that she herself has been singled out for recognition from those sources. No vote. Postdlf 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Eagletalk 00:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that delete. 325 Google hits for a model is abysmally low. Postdlf 01:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Royboycrashfan 01:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the total number of magazine appearances to me seems just enough to push her over the line to notability. JoshuaZ 01:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep per 69.105.140.121. JoshuaZ 03:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable --Ajdz 03:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the creator of the page (so I guess my vote doesn't count), and no offense taken if it's deleted. But if it makes a difference, this is not just a resume dump, and I have no affiliation with the subject at all other than being a fan who found her work on the Internet. Minimal Google hits at present (as an above commenter mentioned), but she's only been modeling for about a year and she's already made MAXIM Belgium and the Lingerie Bowl. In addition, I didn't list her upcoming features, but she will be in the Playboy Lingerie Catalogue as well as several 2007 calendars. I didn't list her TV stuff (yet), but she's also been on CSI, The Office, an Icehouse Beer commercial, ESPN2's Cold Pizza, MTV's TRL, and other stuff I'm not familiar with. I predict that the Google count will surpass 1,000 within 60 days (the MAXIM feature is just hitting stands now) and will rise from there. If it'd be better to wait and create a Wikipedia article after that happens . . . like I said, no offense taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.140.121 (talk • contribs)
    • It's note really a "vote" it just looks like it is, and while it's good form to declare your authorship, it in no way invalidates your contribution to the discussions. These are (mostly) divided into two sections: gathering of facts and chat about how those facts mesh with guidelines, policies, and tribal knowledge. Everyone is welcome (and encouraged!) to contribute facts, it's only in the opinons section that "time served" counts. - brenneman{L} 04:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, non-notable. But, original author, if you're right, feel free to create this again in 60 days. (There are lots of TV extra/commercial actresses in the world. If this one actually becomes an overnight sensasion, sure, she deserves an article. Until then, sorry...) Ehurtley 08:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And the author should copy the info on to their harddrive. If in 60 (or whatever) days, she is famous and notable, then recreate it. --Midnighttonight 09:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is so copied. Thanks.
  • Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:21, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Bats[edit]

  • Delete band vanity. I speedied this twice, because the band lacks an All Music Guide entry, is not apparently signed with anyone, and gets only 273 unique google hits.[3] I think the article's author is exhibiting good faith persistence with this, however, so I'm giving him a chance to make his case here. (So help me...) Postdlf 01:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 01:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... a third (+) time repost can not get a keep from me unless a very, very good reason is represented. - Eagletalk 01:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with nom -- Samir (the scope) 01:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep. You guys sold me with the multiple nontrivial published works. Sheepishly living in TO, I haven't heard of them. -- Samir (the scope) 01:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable band, fails WP:Music, already speedily deleted two times --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect per nom. --DMG413 01:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Rockpocket 01:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading through WP:MUSIC I have discovered a reason to keep this page as is, they have been on tour throughout the Northeastern US and Canada, and have recieved coverage on a major music television station. Both reasons are stated in the article. For those 2 reasons I argue to keep this page.Avenged Evanfold 02:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not like they're the local high school band, I'm seeing them with Protest the Hero and The Bled on Friday at a major venue in Toronto [4]. Avenged Evanfold 02:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry about posting 3 separate times, probably making myself look stupid. Anyways this link takes you to MuchMusic where Cancer Bats are number 1 on the playlist for the show MuchLoud. [5] Avenged Evanfold 02:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AE's research. International tours meet WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup. The article is POV, but seems to meet WP:MUSIC to me. Lankiveil 11:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, clean up; touring schedule clearly satisfies WP:MUSIC. Monicasdude 14:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:MUSIC says: Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources. - where are the verifiable and notable sources? The other criteria are clearly not satisifed; one self-released (demo) album, no gold records, no charted records, no Allmusic guide entry, no evodence of coverage in reliable sources. And a Myspace page. Just zis Guy you know? 15:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Response. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Not terribly high-profile, but certainly verifiable. Monicasdude 15:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid. Now ho about some notable and evrifiable sources, since those do not appear to meet WP:RS in respect of touring. Just zis Guy you know? 09:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. and fails the "If I have to pack my bags and drive to Canada to hear their music, they're not notable" test. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And which test is this? I know you're somewhat in jest with the "pack my bags and drive to Canada" thing, but they meet one, possibly two, guideline line items. Is that worth nothing? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm always skeptical about the touring criteria. So they rented a bus and drove from Montreal to Portland, ME and then to Toronto - that hardly qualifies as a national tour IMHO, let alone an international tour. Any band that lives in Plattsburgh, NY and gets a gig at a bar in Montreal a half-hour away can be said to have been on international tour?! But I'm listening... I'm not completely inflexible on this questionable criteria. To me, the almost-total lack of recorded music speaks much more loudly though. That puts them on the same level as a couple of my cousins. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I'd be in favor of relaxing the touring requirement to regions as opposed to nations, but yes, that's international - they went on a tour and went to multiple nations. It's also not out of the question for tours to be able to help build up the credibility to have the ability to record. Regardless, whatever they've recorded has ended up on MuchMusic, so they're probably at a higher level than your cousins. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response. Okay Ive been fighting for this page but I think i could let it get deleted, for now. I have it saved elsewhere so when they do become bigger, like this summer when their cd is released, and when it does and they go on tour to promote, then I'll just put it back up with the necessary updates.Avenged Evanfold 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When they are on Allmusic, have topped the Indie charts or made a respectable showing in the national mainstream charts, got a gold record, released a couple of albums with a decent-sized label, been covered in the music press, toured as support for a major act - these kinds of things are the indicators that a band is on the way. I wish them luck, it's a tough game. Just zis Guy you know? 16:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Isn't notable enough for an article. Harro5 21:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So I sing in a coffeehouse in St. Albans, VT on Monday, then I drive over the border and sing in a roadhouse in Venice-au-Quebec on Tuesday. Does that make me an internationally touring performer and therefore notable? If they do put out a CD, and it gets genuine airplay, that changes the deal. RGTraynor 21:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 17:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have a proffessionally made 4 track-EP, 2 tracks on their label's (Distort which is the same label as Alexisonfire Summer Compilation) and a proffessionally made 7" record and the video on Muchmusic. . They have t shirts, pins and other merchandise and they play shows with International nown groups. Do you people have any idea how many 1 hit wonders are have their own pages on this site? or useless stubs relating to the useless things nobody needs to know? This isnt the local highschool band, this is real group, leave em alone, whats your problem anyways, get a life and stop trying to delete my pageAvenged Evanfold 21:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are painfully aware of how many insignificant bands have managed to weasel their way into WP, and I would personally encourage you to nominate any you find which do not meet WP:MUSIC, or at least tag them with {music-importance}. But the existence of some articles which do not meet guidelines has never been, for me, a compelling argument for including more. Just zis Guy you know? 09:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you voting delete on this one? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The band has a label, it isn't just some kids in their garage. The band also has fans, aka people who may like to research the band, maybe on wikipedia. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA if you havn't forgotten; the only people who want to delete this are haters and people with too much time on their hands, just leave it alone! —This unsigned comment was added by Jerkmonkee (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as non-notable. As well said by JzG and RGTraynor. Ifnord 03:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:44] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 (e) 00:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast for fear of choking[edit]

Great name, but doesn't meet band criteria at WP:MUSIC, 30 unique Ghits, not on allmusic.com. -- Samir (the scope) 01:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom -- Samir (the scope) 01:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 01:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable band, fails WP:Music --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per all above. Rockpocket 01:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. the wub "?!" 11:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte per nom (it is a great band name, as Samir says). Joe 22:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 01:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (maybe) -- It claims that its frontman is David J from the well-known glam rock band Bauhaus, if so then it might be worth keeping. However, I'm not convinced this is the same person. Another of their band members, Joe C, is also somewhat known, but apparently died in 2000 yet the band released a record in 2006 so this might not be the same person either. Can anyone verify whether these are the band members before deleting? Nrets 19:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, no it's definitely not David J from Bauhaus and it's not the late Kid Rock sidekick Joe C. Just coincidence; it appears as though the band members have chosen to use their first names and last initial (Jeff S, Andres P, and Dan J are the others), and decided to wikilink them. -- Samir (the scope) 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, I've changed my vote. Nrets 17:40, 27 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 moot. Article already deleted by an administrator. Ifnord 20:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese FM[edit]

Non-notable internet radio station, WP:Not a crystal ball, 354 Google results [13] --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Rory096 05:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not even online yet. the wub "?!" 11:55, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TEAM (company)[edit]

This is the second nomination for deletion; the first, resulting in no consensus, can be found here. The second nomination was made because there is nothing about this company/organization that warrants an article separate from either Quixtar or Independent Business Owner; the copyright infringement lawsuit warrants mention, but does not make "TEAM" as a whole notable. Basically, this page as it currently stands is a hodgepodge of advertising, defense of the practices of MLM organizations, links to "TEAM" websites/blogs, and a brief discussion of the website; the latter can be incorporated into a different article, the rest ought to be deleted altogether for being unencyclopedic Paul 02:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as there is no claim to notability. Wikipedia's involvement should not affect whether it is kept or deleted. -- Kjkolb 07:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn company/advertising. Lankiveil 11:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete advertcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Edit - remove the advertising, add the result of the court case and move the article from "TEAM" to "Team of Destiny" with a "also known as..." may also want to add a "see also" for Team... Fosnez 10:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pre nom. MaNeMeBasat 14:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:44] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politicking timebomb[edit]

Promoting the article creator's new (or possibly not-yet-existing) blog. Google search for "Politicking timebomb" turns up no blog by that name. (note: PROD tag removed by article creator) FreplySpang (talk) 02:08, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VMerken[edit]

This is just some guy who's good at Resident Evil 4. There's thousands of doom speedrunners that don't have articles, just because he's made a guide or two doesn't make him notable. A Clown in the Dark 02:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable, obvious vanity, fails WP:BIO --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Video game player. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, doesn't appear to have yet established notability per the guideline for inclusion of humans. Perhaps when/if he gets picked up by a publisher or is featured in Wired. - brenneman{L} 04:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Not saying "delete" in bold since it's not a vote and my opinon is clear.[reply]
  • Speedy delete a7, no claims of notability. --Rory096 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Rory. Bucketsofg 05:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. I've deleted it now per CSD A7, non-notable. Restored it, now. Advised better to let AFD run its course. :)Gflores Talk 05:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedying articles on AfD that meet the criteria is common practice. Is there some other reason to wait? -- Kjkolb 07:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because this isn't an article that meets the criterion. There are claims to notability, albiet weak ones. Almost certainly a moot point, but there is no reason to hurry, and always best to err on the side of caution. - brenneman{L} 07:50, 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 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portipsen[edit]

Delete. Non-notable fansite, low Alexa ranking. Crystallina 03:04, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing Time (author's timeline)[edit]

Not encyclopedic Tom Harrison Talk 03:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is a notice at the end of the page that says, “The preceding is copyright 1994 by Daniel Keys Moran. It may be disseminated freely so long as the information contained herein is not altered in any way. The author can be reached at D.MORAN8@GENIE.GEIS.COM.” I do not think those conditions are compatible with release under the GFDL. The author seems to be trying to use this page as a vehicle to promote his work. Tom Harrison Talk 03:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don’t think the author is trying to use this page; the text was added by MJBurrage. However, the concern about non-GFDL content stands. -- Mithent 03:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: DKM got off the net about two years ago, so he can’t possibly be engaging in self-promotion. Nonetheless, I’d like someone to discuss copyright issues here -- is DKM’s current license compatible with the GFDL? If not, someone would need to contact him and get his permission to post this on Wikipedia. I’m a fan of the Continuing Time, and I'd like to vote keep, but I can’t as long as copyvio concerns hang like a sword of Damocles over that section.
      • The rest of the article (the stuff aside from the list) is *not* written by DKM, has no possible copyright problems, and should be kept. Alba 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource per Ashibaka. Alba 14:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikisource material, not an encyclopedia article. Ashibaka tock 03:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The list of 7 items, the timeline, and the release were all written by DKM, all I did was format it to fit wikipedia’s style, and post it. The list of items seems appropriate to the entry Daniel Keys Moran, and the timeline seems very appropriate to an entry on his work. (the latter of which I was going to work on this weekend as I reread the books. I only posted both parts together because it seemed like the proper way to fit DKM’s own release (freely disseminate, but do not change the information) to the wikipedia policy. (I only changed the formatting). Keep —MJBurrage 06:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, text that cannot be altered should usually not be posted to Wikipedia, especially when it makes up the bulk of the article's content. A quote might be acceptable depending on its length. As stated before, this is more Wikisource material, but I don't know if it is compatible with their license, either. -- Kjkolb 07:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio incompatible with GFDL. Contrary to MJBurrage, the essence of the GFDL is that any author is allowed to alter any other author's contribution for any reason, so long as the various versions are properly attributed. DKM's self-imposed conditions are incompatible with the GFDL, meaing the article would have to be permanently protected (a bad precedent to set) or deleted. Thatcher131 09:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, incompatible with Wikipedia and the GFDL. the wub "?!" 12:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rereading the editing portion of the GFDL, I can see the problem.
    Would using just the timeline information in a wikipedia article about the Continuing Time be fair use?
    What are the copyright issues for moving this to Wikisource? (which I am unfamiliar with)
    —MJBurrage 19:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is what Wikisource includes. If it's available on line, maybe we could just link to it and provide a brief summary. Tom Harrison Talk 19:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, every edit page has "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." in bold. -- Jeandré, 2006-03-23t20:27z
  • Delete. Never mind the degree to which this might not be currently accurate; heck, GEnie shut down several years ago. RGTraynor 21:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the wub. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thatcher131 and Jeandré -- ClarkBHM 05:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:44] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical game theory[edit]

It's nonsense, if it were not nonsense it would be OR, but it's nonsense Pete.Hurd 03:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not certain it's nonsense -- but it certainly is poorly written WP:OR. Delete. Alba 03:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Move to user space. WP:OR. I found some references, but generally old, and very few. Combination of obvious terms did not return anything on Web-of-Science, or google scholar. --KimvdLinde 03:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that the sole author of this page moves it for the time being to his onw userspace, and developes it there first. After that, he can ask for comments by other editors at the mathematics project page to avoid WP:OR before reinserting it at the main space. KimvdLinde 17:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, i added references... don't say it's OR or nonsense before it gets more complete. Dexter Inside 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding references at the end is not sufficient in this case, I would consider to add references in the text as to indicate where it has been described as such. Combining pieces can also be original research. KimvdLinde 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided See below. "Statistical game theory" is a real branch of mathematical statistics. There are academic papers on it here [14] and here [15]. I haven't evaluated the article for quality, but the topic is valid. It would be nice if someone with expertise could weigh in, but if they don't, I'll try to look it over later. Slowmover 17:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that there is no such thing called statistical game theory, but that this article contains nothing that pertains to how the term as it is used outside of this page. None of the references supplied pertain to the topic either. Pete.Hurd 17:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just wanted to add some material for other voters, but now I'm voting myself. The references given are general texts and so don't really support the article, which fails to discuss material aspects of statistical game theory as described elsewhere, so it should be deleted. If the true subject is something else, it can be recreated. Slowmover 18:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay in this case maybe the title of this article is not so appropriate. I couldn't find much stuff on the net regarding this particular study, and also there are no similar articles to this on Wikipedia. Suggestions for a new title would be nice. The references are pertinent to the actual content of this article, not to its title. Gonna learn more about namespaces used on Wikipedia. 10x for possible quality evaluations. Dexter Inside 18:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, where is it all about (in layman terms)? KimvdLinde 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's like this:
1) a more general theory that resembles the way statistics is used in physical chemistry, to be used in computer science
2) it is being developed and supported by the Polytechnic University of Bucharest, as well as some private companies interested in its applications in parallel processing and online gaming
3) here it is refered to with the term "statistical game theory" so if you are right it may be an ambiguation
4) it's supposed to treat general problems that arise from game theory and chaos theory as a cybernetic system
5) it's supposed to solve these problems using statistical methods Dexter Inside 19:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has problems (original research, convoluted, etc.) but it's a real topic, verifiable and notable per Slowmover. It could use a lot of cleanup but that's cause for tagging it not deleting it. Ifnord 20:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Delete. I'm changing my vote because Pete.Hurd has pointed out to me the article is completely flawed as is. While my heart tells me the article could exist, my gut tells me no one will ever fix it. Better to let it go then. Ifnord 23:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR, at least in its current form. -- Avenue 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless direct citations are provided, tt appears to me original research. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramatis[edit]

I tagged this as prod, but because it survived a vfd back in may the prod was removed. Basically the article survived the first time around because people wanted to give it a chance, but the article's still unverified, google turns up nothing, and the main article on the guy makes no mention of Ramatis. It sounds way too much like someone took something written in one of Kardec's books and created a character around him to write a bunch of books, but there no verification that the books or the character actually exists, and none's likely forthcoming. Night Gyr 21:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Are we giving any credence to this combination of statements: (1) "Ramatis is a spiritual entity"; (2) "Ramatis has dictated many books" ?? Regardless of whether Ramatis is found in Spritism or not, these statements formulate a belief, which by its very nature cannot be verified. Therefore, delete as unverifiable (ever). This material could only be included as a description of some beliefs under Spiritism, and cannot be entertained as written. Slowmover 21:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn religion. The only GHits I find for this seem to be for a Brazilian musician or a Star Trek planet. Fan1967 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and Keep merge to Allan Kardec and/or Spiritism. Kardec was apparently a proponent of spiritism and wrote books dictated to him by mediums channeling spirits. Apparently Ramatis contradicts some of Kardec's other writings. Ramatis is apparently a notable part of Spiritism as it is practiced in Brazil. An argument could be made to merge Ramatis into Spiritism but the Spiritism article currently contains little info on current Brazilian practics so there would be no context. Better as a separate article until somebody writes Spiritism in Brazil. Thatcher131 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are your sources? There's nothing on this guy online. Night Gyr 09:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat has at least 10 books "written" by Ramatis, dictated to Brazilian spiritualists including Hercílio Maes and América Paoliello Marques in the 1970s. I can't tell you what they say because I don't have copies and even if I did I don't read portugese. While looking for info on Kardec I found a comment that Spiritism was gradually absorbed into Spiritualism in Europe but retains a separate identity in South America. The article needs an expert tag but should be kept as part of modern Spiritism. Thatcher131 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are also apparently 2 books about Spiritism that mention Ramatis including Spirits and scientists, ideology, spiritism, and Brazilian culture by David Hess published by Penn State University Press. My library has it and I may be able to review it in the next few days. Thatcher131 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 03:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable stupidity. JoshuaZ 03:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted above the listings in Worldcat verify that Ramatis is a "real" spirit entity in Brazilian Spiritism, and the fact that he is noted as a "named person" in the bibliographic record of a book about Spiritism published by Penn State University Press suggests that he is notable. I am mildly interested in following up on this and expanding the article into a decent stub, but I will be out of town for a week before I could even think about it.Thatcher131 03:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A spirit entity dictated this to me because this article is stupid Nobunaga24 08:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability, not verified. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 15:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No verification. If someone digs up some of those alleged Brazilian books and wants to rewrite this article for the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, more power to him. RGTraynor 21:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BGC, Traynor. Eusebeus 18:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Dougherty[edit]

Delete. This man has done nothing except issue a prophesy that managed to be correct (even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so making that prediction is not notable by itself). The article has no sources except the man's own homepage and near-death.com; this does not constitute widespread media coverage. In short: I can't find any evidence of notability. Powers 03:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, non-notable. (And... "atheist-American"? Wha?) · rodii · 04:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His prophecy was "A major terrorist attack may befall New York City or Washington, DC". Wow. No wonder he hasn't had any media coverage. the wub "?!" 12:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hereby prophesize that Lord Bob will vote to delete this non-notable person's article. Delete. Hey, I was right! Lord Bob 16:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew Lord Bob was going to do that, but now I can't prove it, can I? I guess I won't write a wiki article about it then. But if my prophecy can't be on WP, then neither can Ned's! Delete as shameless self-promotion. BTW, the book he wrote can be found here [16]. Slowmover 17:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vote may go to Delete this article. Hey, Edgar Cayce, Jeane Dixon, move over! RGTraynor 21:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I forsee that's what is going to happen anyway. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, although I am wary of contradicing a man with sources like his. As the article says, "He has said to have spoken with Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary about several matters". --[User:Jesus H. Christ]] --[User:Virgin Mary]] --BrownHairedGirl 00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:28, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informationship[edit]

neologism with only 143 unique Google hits. It has been suggested that this be moved to Wiktionary, I disagree. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Delete and DON'T transwiki. This is neologism. Made up studentwordcruft. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no transwiki. Nn neologism. the wub "?!" 12:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no transwiki. The article documents the word as a student's neologism in 2006, and provides no evidence of any other usage. Not of sufficient significance. Sliggy 22:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Chairman S. Talk 05:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitopia[edit]

  • Neologism, unable to verify, does not google. Prod tag removed by original contributor. Accurizer 03:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Yannick 05:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article which describes itself as a neologism... Gwernol 06:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, WP:NEO. Esquizombi 08:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as unverifiable. Robin Johnson 11:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Unverifiable. --Soumyasch 15:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - his forthcoming book is on META-WIKI[17]. Blatant OR. -- infinity0 21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The below was placed on the project talk page. Accurizer 22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikitopia movement's entry should not be removed because it is a sincere political movement which is developing both a body of work and a following very rapidly. It can be googled. It also has a wikibook which is well underway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitopian (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkpedia[edit]

nn concept. 10 Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:53, 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 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilac circle[edit]

Non-notable street. Delete. Fightindaman 04:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article could definitely be speedied, but surely delete per nom is appropriate. Joe 05:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I like the part about the snake. --Lockley 06:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we had an article about every street in the US, then Wikipedia would get pretty crowded. Besides, I'm not even convinced that Minnesota State Highway 45 is noteworthy, and I'm sure it gets more traffic than Lilac Circle. --Elkman - (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:28, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommandN[edit]

This article was previously deleted and protected from recreation. This new version was supported at WP:DRV and so I have moved it into place. DRV also wanted it relisted here. -Splashtalk 23:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is section on WP:NOT? Mike (T C) 06:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hosted by one of the stars of TechTv Canada, plus both the hosts are notable enough for articles on wikipedia, shouldn't their podcast? If not merge with one of their articles, however this is extremely notable, and i am the king of AfD'ing nn stuff. Mike (T C) 05:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ive actually contacted the host amber to see if there has been any press coverage on them, she said there has been by some american news papers, i am awaiting the reply with links. If I cannot find verifiable references for this article my vote wil change to delete. Mike (T C) 21:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the references given in the article, the first is a press release that only mentions CommandN once "...video blogs such as CommandN, MacTV and Rocketboom." The superman references are on a blog of one of the hosts, and the other says "Techtainment is a personal website" [19]. While I find appearing on the back of someone's jacket in a panel (or two?) of a comic interesting, it's hardly a demonstration of notability. Based upon the dearth of references that are unbiased sources, unless evidence of satisfying the inclusion guidelines for websites is provided delete . - brenneman{T}{L} 11:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems every other podcast stays, so why can't we keep this. Have you had your favourite TV show/movie/podcast seen in a Superman cartoon? -- Zanimum 17:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've never commented before, but Command-N is a very popular podcast/video program that has fostered more than a few fansites, and is easily as popular as and listened to as This Week in Tech, DiggNation, and the like. I wouldn't consider it vanity; a more developed article on the history and technology topics covered by the show could be a valuable resource. 128.231.88.4 18:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC) phoenix[reply]
  • I don't suppose asking all contributors to provide sources would be out of line? - brenneman{L} 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WAY OUT OF LINE COMON NOW!!! Just kidding, I am looking for sources, I have found one but cant find the actual article, when i do ill post it here (Its a news article about it in the chicago times). Mike (T C) 01:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Relist to stretch it another five days? - brenneman{L} 02:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Might as well =). Mike (T C) 03:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to allow extra time for refernces to come in. - brenneman{L} 04:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that this is important, and it is the kind of thing that will probably spin into obscurity soon. I suspect the article is a kind of advertising. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 15:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An obscure Podcast? Please. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good quality podcast and vidcast. Long running and hosts are reputable and well-known in the tech world (which obviously I see a lot of people here don't know about). They are currently up to episode 38 meaning they have actually been running longer than Diggnation with more episodes. Traffic details: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=www.commandn.tv
    • Ya but that rank is way way to high to be used (please note I voted to keep). Mike (T C) 05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn (and unsourced) podcast. Eusebeus 18:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ç

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ages of characters on The Simpsons[edit]

Worthless, pointless, and shoddily written.

  • Delete. This is not a Simpsons-specific phenomenon, and as such this article is non-encyclopedic. Vslashg (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Per nom. Reyk 06:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources for the term "Simpsons Age" or "Simpson Age" being used. Robin Johnson 09:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Vslashg. JIP | Talk 10:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic. could be blurbed into an article that covers timeline skews in The Simpsons, but doesn't require an article. youngamerican (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 16:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Welker[edit]

Author removed speedy tag and expanded the article. However, even after expansion, I don't believe the article makes any assertions that meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Vslashg (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not good at determining notability for music-related articles, but it might be worth taking a closer look at some of the other articles that User:Awelker has been creating at a rapid-fire pace. --Maxamegalon2000 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Some guy 05:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible candidate to userfy. If User:Awelker is not the subject, then delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 05:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nothing to indicate notability here. Gwernol 06:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity (author is "Awelker") & non-notable. --Lockley 06:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:28, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIF spam[edit]

This article is about a non-notable term that some guy "Curtis H." made up. This term is not used by people in the anti-spam field. The article has nothing useful to say which is not already said in our many other articles pertaining to email spam. It seems to exist solely to lend legitimacy to this one person's made-up word.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fubar Obfusco (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nominator. The only other sites that contain this term are Wikipedia mirrors, or are cases of incidental usage. Non-notable neologism. — TheKMantalk 05:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete protologism. Google can't find anyone using the terms "BIF spam" or "getting BIFed". Weregerbil 10:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipediaspamcruftneologism. NN, too. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete protologism. incog 21:13, 27 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 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick siegel[edit]

NN creator of nn video, vanity , WP:AUTO. Only claim to notability is his video 911_Eyewitness currently up for deletion (see AfD for that to see discussion on notability of the video). 451 GhitsMmx1 04:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm adding this comment on top of page to say that I made some changes on the article and dugg for sources of content that I added to external links. It seems since the video 911 eyewitness got out, several people have been wondering about that guy. IMHO wikipedia should provide information about that guy as it is pretty scarce. Izwalito
  • Delete non-notable author of non-notable video. Weregerbil 10:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment made some edits to the article to try to make it more NPOV and reduce vanity. Not sure how it might affect the AfD (of which I have no opinion at this time). --mtz206 14:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously people have a very difficult time being objective about Rick's page. As he is directly associated with the most important event in 50 years of US History, it would be nearsighted to delete his page. The simple act of filming the events of 911 from such a unique vantage point merits inclusion on its own. Bpd1069 16:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Since my above comment, the amount of information on the page has been expanded and clearly shows a notable history. I have also read the the page re Deletion of pages. The only possible category this could fall under would be a user page but as this page was not created by Rick himself as stated below, even that category would be a stretch. I believe the problem is Rick's affiliation with the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, and as such there is a knee jerk reaction to deminish his credibilty. Bpd1069 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has made one 1 edit prior to this page.
  • The links here still don't show significant notability. Articles have no indication of his role in the early BBS's, only that he was interviewed for them.--Mmx1 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No problem being objective here. Marcus22 16:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Non-notable. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."--Carl Sagan. Played with Bob Dylan and Styx? — RJH 16:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RJHall. Well said indeed. Lord Bob 17:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Slowmover 17:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, or failing that, Delete. The problem is that there's insufficient proof of notability to support leaving this in the article space. --Alan Au 20:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
zapruder[edit]
  • NOTE: zapruder is not the AfD, it is Rick siegel. This is a subsection of the AfD for Rick siegel--Mmx1 17:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm removing the link from "zapruder" above to alleviate any further confusion. Slowmover 17:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE at least I qualify for Zapruder of this century. Google will list 19000+ entries and msn 180000+ entries mostly me on a search with rick siegel in quotes. I don't need this silly site as some vanity site. I don't know who posted this page and I don't know if I want to thank them. But if it is here I will make sure it is accurate. I do not need this site to validate my accomplishments so far in this life. Ricksiegel 14:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. This is a redirect, so I think a listing in WP:RFD would be more appropriate, but this is a useful redirect to Zapruder film, so I don't see the reason for deleting it. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 15:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zapruder is not up for deletion, Rick siegel who thinks he's zapruder, is. --Mmx1 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case this should probably be speedy keepd. Lord Bob 16:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just noticed that this was actually in the same AfD as Rick siegel, so...yeah...uh...it's not exactly up for deletion, so...uh...don't delete it...anyway. Or something. I'm sorry, I'm tired. Lord Bob 16:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Rick Siegel is more than just the 911 Eyewitness video. That is a video. Just like Zapruder there are entries on him and his film and other aspects. 911 Eyewitness 00:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    user has twenty-two edit, has exclusively edited Siegel-related articles, AfDs, and images. Lord Bob 17:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Don't Shoot the Messenger Rick is a 9/11 eyewitness and internet webcasting pioneer. When he started videotaping the burning towers he had no idea they were going to freefall at the speed of gravity therefore proving controlled demolition and government treason. After the fact, his testimony and video/DVD are historical evidence that could and should be used in a court of law to bring the real masterminds behind 9/11 to justice. Is this why he and his DVD are being attacked for deletion?
    unsigned vote by User:True Patriot, user's fourth edit, has exclusively edited Siegel-related AfDs. Lord Bob 17:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fact that complicit behavior and obstruction of investigations indicate that top government officials are responsible for 9/11 is not Rick's fault. He is not the one who gave approval to carry out domestic terrorism during US wargame exercise week and implode the first three steel frame structures in history live on television assuming the public would never catch on. Are the concerted efforts to remove an eyewitness to the crime of the century nothing more than desperate attempts to maintain a coverup of the truth?
  • Delete the absurdity of the article did make me laugh though. Eusebeus 18:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems to be a stub article to me (content started to be added 12 days ago). I'd really like to know more about that guy in an unbiased way, and what's better than a wikipedia article for that ? I say let it live its stub life for a while and see what comes out of it before submitting to deletion. Izwalito
  • Keep I think all the edits from anonymous show this has a lot of interest from the world outside of Wikipedia. People do not know your system, neither do we. It looks like a lot of people know about this guy and the film, doesn't it? Someone here thought that man was worthy and created it, we found it. It seems accurate enough, although vacant of the breath of the man. I think Izwalito seems to have a reasonable solution that would allow Wiki to bubble up the content and time will determine. It is POV at this point for any of you to continue claims of "insufficient proof of notability." 911 Eyewitness 20:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a) burden of proof is on those that feel the article should be kept to submit proof of notability. none has thus far been produced
b) the flood of anonymous is a result of you putting a link to us on your site and asking people to chime in. --Mmx1 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
about a) I'm trying to contribute in that way but as I said earlier I know nothing about the guy, and am certainly not the most qualified for this job
about b) actually that's how I ended up here. While doing research for working on 9/11 conspiracy theories I found an article signed by rick siegel about agents efforting on wikipedia to silence the most provocative and authoritative documentary yet released. ::: Obviously the guy has no clue about what is wikipedia and how wikipedia works, but IMHO that doesn't make him a phony guy or a bad fellow, and I know very well how wikipedian can react in a stubborn closed-minded way, especially in case like this when one unhappy individual makes bad publicity to wikipedia and use wrong means to try to get what he wants. My guess is this is a typical case of newcomers being bitten, it is difficult to cope with a whole community when you are a single individual or a bunch of individuals. Now I would like to see people **hint**apologize**hint** for their wrongdoing and start working together, not against each other.
please 911eyewitness, don't brandish my name for I am a one man army here. Have a look at the directions I pointed you on Talk:Rick Siegel.
Izwalito
  • Delete per nom - nn. --Khoikhoi 21:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This article should be kept, but NOT in it's current state. It needs to be cleaned up massively. 69.156.204.249 05:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Bov 21:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable & vanity page nihil 15:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no more notable than his already-deleted pseudo-documentary. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caddington F.C.[edit]

Delete -no notability has been established. if you allow for this article, all clubs would get its own article Kiwidude 04:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, obviously. They are notable for playing in the National League System, which marks them out from the tens of thousands of casual football teams in England. I suggest you check out Category:English football clubs and Spartan South Midlands Football League Division Two - pretty much every club at this level and above already does get its own article. — sjorford (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think league teams are by definition notable. Lankiveil 11:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, profesisonal and semi-professional, active or not, football clubs are always notable. Carioca 15:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand or Delete The purpose of this description is to inform, which it fails to do in any commendable depth. History and location of the club are needed! TgC 18:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a stub, like many articles in Wikipedia. We don't delete pages just because they're very short, because they provide a good starting point for a longer article. — sjorford (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every team in the league has an article and that is okay (but players at this level shouldn't have articles). Bhoeble 18:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Ugur Basak 01:24, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Random Chess[edit]

Hoax. I would Prod this but I expect it'd be pulled. From the article Chessmaster: Chessmaster 9000 comes with over 150 different personalities ranging from International Grandmaster strength down to Stanley, who is described as a monkey and plays what are essentially random moves. This simian personality has inspired a fictitious chess variant called Stanley Random Chess. See also this. Stand by for possible influx of chain-yanking. (N.B.: Please be careful how you vote - any vote, including BJAODN, may be taken by some admins as (effectively) a keep vote. If you think the article deserves a place in BJAODN (I don't), consider voting "Delete and BJAODN".) Herostratus 05:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chessmaster page was actually incorrect in describing SR Chess as "fictitious". While much of the commentary and purported history of SR Chess is clearly exaggerated and fictitious, and functions as a spoof and parody of serious chess commentary, the game itself is real, as can be verified from the website where it is actively played. Another user has since (correctly) emended the Chessmaster reference from "fictitious" to "humorous". Gregorytopov 20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First off, AfD is no longer VfD and therefore we are not voting to delete or keep this article. Second, I'm really not sure what to make of this. References to this "game" have already been inserted into the articles of Mornington Crescent (game) and elsewhere, yet I am very hard pressed to find anything on the internet about this game that has not been written by Mr. Topov. The author references a fan base that seems to include solely himself. I am going to hold off on a keep/delete decision for now, pending more information.
Right, about AfD, but rather than "vote" perhaps I should say "traditional bolded one-word summary prepended to your argument (TBOWSPTYA)". I'm just pointing out that a TBOWSPTYA of (say) 5 Delete and 5 BJAODN can result in a closing of "No consensus, keep". Herostratus

Isopropyl 05:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Patent nonsense and hoax. Bucketsofg 05:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disclaimer: I authored the page, so my vote probably doesn't count, but please consider the evidence and check the supporting links for yourself.
I agree that if the fan base only included myself, it would be nonsense, but that is not the case. Two supporting references from external web-sites, to verify the above information:
* 1. http://www.chessvariants.org/link2.dir/srchess.html This chessvariants.org site only lists bona fide playable chess variants, and does not publish hoaxes. The historical claims of SR Chess are disputable and much of the commentary is cloaked in humor, but its playability and authenticity as a real chess variant is genuine.
* 2. http://www.schemingmind.com/games.aspx?variant_id=15 This list gives the current games of Stanley Random Chess in progress at this correspondence chess server. Over 100 games of Stanley Random Chess have been played in the last ten days alone. In fact, an international tournament is currently in progress between ten players, as is evident here: http://www.schemingmind.com/minitournament.aspx?tournament_id=520 This information can be verified with the webmaster of the schemingmind.com website, Austin Lockwood.
Two external contacts I can give: Tony Quintanilla, registered editor of chessvariants.org; and Austin Lockwood, webmaster of schemingmind.com. And dozens of schemingmind.com members who are actively playing the game.
I can appreciate the scepticism, but in view of the above, the Chessmaster page is incorrect in calling Stanley Random Chess "fictitious." This is not the case, because SR Chess is in fact a real chess variant, admittedly inspired somewhat by the Stanley Random Chess personality from the Chessmaster software. By way of explanation, the game is a parody of chess in some respects, by featuring humorous commentary and analysis. But it is a real and serious chess variant, that is played actively online between human players, especially at schemingmind.com.
The game plays exactly like regular chess, but with some additional rules, as described in the wikipedia entry. The two main differences from regular chess are correctly described under the "Rules" section, i.e. approximately 50% of moves are randomly selected by a computer; and if the game goes beyond 30 moves, the game can apparently randomly end at any moment, the winner being the player with most material. If you try playing online at schemingmind.com, you will find these facts to be true, and that the game plays exactly in this way.
In short, although some of the historical claims and some aspects of the game are subject to exaggeration and humor (as referenced in the link posted by Herostratus), the game itself is not a hoax, because there are players actively playing Stanley Random Chess at a real correspondence chess server. If deemed necessary, the content on the wikipedia page can be modified to clarify this. If items like Mornington Crescent (game) and Mao (game) can have Wikipedia entries, the same applies to Stanley Random Chess. The game has aspects of humor and secrecy, but it is a real and playable game, as any active member of the above-mentioned correspondence chess server can verify. I am quite willing to have the content modified or clarified to meet Wikipedia standards and satisfy those with concerns, but a valid entry for Stanley Random Chess is justifiable, especially since it is referenced by the Chessmaster article (albeit incorrectly as "fictional"). Feel free to direct me with specific suggestions about how I should modify the content to make it satisfactory.Gregorytopov 05:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's a great lot of words which I'll look at when I can, but your argument is not aided by the fact that the "Historical origins section of the article includes passages such as "Documenting historical evidence that dates back to the early English monarchy..." which links, as reference, to a page which says "Until recently, it was incorrectly supposed that Stanley Random Chess owed its humble origins to... the lowest rated personality in the world-famous Chessmaster software... [but] Following concentrated studies of the Stanley family in early Britain... Goldman and Morgenstern provide solid evidence that the name "Stanley" originates with Sir Thomas Stanley (d. 1459)... The first mention of the game itself is found in historical accounts of the Ferrers family in 1137... In 1892, the Stanley Cup was sadly donated by the rebel Sir Frederick Arthur Stanley, from which time it was used as a trophy for amateur hockey in Canada. Frederick T. Stanley, who in 1843 founded The Stanley Works... was responsible for popularizing SR Chess in America..." The game may well be real, but mixing such faux history with the actual game is probably not a good way to get an article kept on Wikipedia. Perhaps a general cleanup of the article would solve the problem, assuming of course that the game itself is real. Herostratus 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Good point. Even though the game is real (verifiable by the links above showing current games and a current tournament between multiple players), a Wikipedia article on the game should clear state that any claims about historical origins are exaggerated and intended to reflect humor rather than reality, even though the game itself is real. The same can be said about most commentary and analysis of the game, as described well below by another player of the game, surfnsuds. The paragraph on historical claims has currently been deleted by another editor - it probably should be reworked so that readers are informed about the wild claims, but made aware that while they are false the game itself is real, and that Monty Python style commentary is typically employed to accompany a real game, and is part of the attraction of the game. Gregorytopov 14:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Gregorytopov[reply]

Update It's real, and it's fun to play! I have played many games of Stanley Random Chess on Schemingmind.com over the last year or so. I enjoy it very much. It is worthwhile on a number of levels.

The game itself can be played to win, in spite of (and even taking advantage of) the random aspects (which are accurately described above, though I think the percentage of random moves are less than 50% as stated above - more like 30% is my guess). This aspect involves an exercise of basic statistics. The game also is unique in that one may make moves which in regular chess would appear to be blunders. However, again by playing the odds, you can frequently obtain advantage by making intentional "blunders". With study, you can determine which "blunders" can reault in advantage and which are not likely to. This aspect of the game to mind resembles bluffing in poker and is unique among the many chess variants I have played.

However, the most unusual and to my mind, the most fun aspect of the game is the tradition of creative, humorous commentary surrounding the game. The process is as mentioned above, similar to "Mornington Crescent" and the result reads more like Monty Python.

These points are intended to show that the game is viable and enjoyable for folks who tend to enjoy creative gaming. But they are my conclusions and opinions. Surely, however, the hundreds of games played to date at SchemingMind.com by dozens of players over the last year are a verifiable fact that proves the game is as real as tic-tac-toe.

I am brand-new to Wiki and have not figured things out yet. Bear with me. I am NOT GregTopov, but I admire his creation.

--Surfnsuds 20:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete hoax. Chess playing monkeys documented in non-existent books, huh? There may be a grain of truth intermixed in the lies somewhere. Even if those can be disentangled we are left with a non-notable nonsense game. Oh, and Mr. Topov, I'm glad the news of your death at the hands of escaped monkeys were exaggerated. Weregerbil 09:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only after tidying up and copyediting. Article does give sources. --Soumyasch 10:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note where those references point. A single geocities account with utter BS about the game, a copy of the BS, and a game server. This is something made up in school one day and then written up on a couple of web sites. Also compare the purpoted history of "Common Chess" and, well, reality. Weregerbil 10:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update To address the above concerns, any fictional claims have been deleted, and a section entitled "Parody and Humor" has been added to clarify what aspects of the game are real, and to explain the tradition of exaggeration and fiction associated with the game. To the best of my knowledge, the article in its present revised form is accurate and verifiable from the sources cited above. Gregorytopov 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Gregorytopov[reply]
  • Delete Seems anyone could invent anything and make an article out of it. Just mildly amusing hoax-cum-schoolboy-humour. Marcus22 16:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: check verification sources please! I'm a new user, so I want to be polite, but I'm disappointed that folks don't seem to be checking some of my sources for verification, and are suggesting that the game itself is a hoax.
    • YES - much of the commentary and history of the game is fictional, for the sake of parody; in fact this is precisely one attraction of the game for creative players who enjoy adding to the imaginary traditions surrounding the game, and this is now clearly described and admitted as such in the revised form of the article.
    • NO - the game itself is not a hoax, but is a legal and fun chess variant, as can be verified from this tournament and 100s of current games from multiple users (logging on as a guest may be necessary to view those pages).
Like Mornington Crescent (game), Stanley Random Chess involves much parody and fiction, but like Mao (game) it is a real game with real rules and is actively played by enthusiasts. Visit these links[20][21] to verify this, and you'll see for yourself that I'm not dreaming this up or perpetuating a hoax about a non-existent game played only by myself. Gregorytopov 16:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is badly written on a subject that holds little or no importance to chess, or to anything else for that matter. Regardless of whether it is fictitious or not, dispose of this!
  • Delete as unverifiable. WP:V requires multiple independent reliable sources to establish whether an article is verifiable, and the references for this article are all 1. by the same person, and 2. not reliable sources (Geocities?). Ziggurat 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I'm a little perplexed by the assertion that "the references for this article are all 1. by the same person", particularly when the article cites at least three other sources outside the geocities site:
Comment, for those who don't read Dutch: this Krabbé article is very obviously not intended to be taken seriously. David Sneek 20:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refutation, the Krabbe article correctly portrays typical SR Chess commentary, which as already noted is highly exaggerated and humorous in keeping with the spirit of the game. But this doesn't detract from the fact that the variant itself is real and playable. Conversely, it is an argument in favor of its notability, since it has received attention from independent chess analysts like Tim Krabbe. Gregorytopov 20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To say that his article, which consists entirely of claims no reader will believe, "doesn't detract from the fact that the variant itself is real", is hardly the same as suggesting that it can serve as a reference for an encyclopedia article. David Sneek 21:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All three can be contacted for the purposes of external verification. Isn't this inconsistent with the suggestion that there is a single source, and that the article is "unverifiable"? Respectfully submitted, Gregorytopov 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)GregoryTopov[reply]
Excuse me, one of the sources is written by another person, possibly as a translation of the others. Unverifiability claim stands. Ziggurat 19:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable chess variant. No Guru 18:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update The variant is real and played by many variant players. It's known in variant playing circles (either reviled or loved) and I'll vouch for it's existence since I'm currently one of the highest rated players [22] (scroll down to Stanley Random Chess). Clearly the article needs to remove any and all inaccurate historical content. It has as much right to exist here as Mornington Crescent (game) and should follow that pages example for how to present it's material. neoliminal 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as much right to exist" ... Mornington Crescent has reliable external sources about it (e.g. [23] ). Stanley Random Chess does not. Ziggurat 21:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though I am an expert at this game and have scored several wins against Mr. Topov himself, it is not played by enough people to be notable. David Sneek 20:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refutation. 1. Since this is a serious discussion about the inclusion of SR Chess, the record should state that I have never played Mr. Sneek. 2. Many chess variants with articles on Wikipedia are played by far less people than Stanley Random Chess, which has around 100 active games in progress on one chess server alone at present. Gregorytopov 20:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten people playing each other on one server. Any evidence that it is played somewhere else? David Sneek 22:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Encise 23:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless my annual backyard water pistol competition is notable. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • and if I put up a $10,000 first prize for the world champion, would that make it notable? The game is a chess variant, like all the other chess variants listed. It's notability here is on the same level as Mao (game) or Nomic which arguably have less players currently playing them.neoliminal 01:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. Stanley Random Chess is just as notable as most of the other chess variants already on Wikipedia, if not more so given its active player base. As a matter of consistency, if it is not sufficently notable, then many of the other chess variants should also be deleted, since several of them only reference a chessvariants.org page for verification, and are thus even less notable and less verifiable than SRC.
  • Keep. The first and primary reason for AfD was "hoax". This reason is objectively false. The game is real; it does exist. Enough evidence has been provided to prove that to someone willing to follow the source references.

Then the discussion turned to questions of notableness. It was compared(?) to a water gun fight in someone's backyard. I think the rhetorical comparison actually illustrates that the game is notable. Please follow my logic.

It's not exactly a water gun fight; but, could a tug-of-war contest ever make the Wikipedia? There is a famous tug-of war contest between two cities on the Mississippi River. While only the Iowa and Illinois city have direct interest in the contest, surely its relationship to the Mighty Mississip, to commercial river navigation (which is halted during the contest), and its uniqueness would give sufficient notoriety to the contest to justify a Wikipedia entry, n'est ce pas?

So, how do I justify that SR Chess is notable? SR Chess is discussed in at least two languages and on at least three referrenced independent websites (four with Wikipedia). Hundreds of games have been played -- by players around the world. This real and notable game has legitimate strategical value (for instance, the random elements are no obstacle to the good SRC player winning the majority of his or her games).

The problem is perhaps not irrelevance, but irritation. While the psuedo-serious approach to the game by its adherents (of which I am one) seems to bother some persons, their distress over behaviour is clearly no reason to eliminate the article itself. I do not know in what form the article first appeared; but, it looks objective and unoffensive at this point.

Stanley Random Chess is a legitimate part of the growing realm of chess variants. Please allow the article to remain in Wikipedia.

Archr Archr 17:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, less notable even than Chihuahua's annual backyard water pistol competition. Eusebeus 18:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refutation. A patently false assertion that cannot be substantiated, and an unfair contribution to this discussion. Unlike Stanley Random Chess, this backyard water pistol competition is not verifiable to have over 100 active games in progress, a current tournament, several external sources on multiple web-sites [24] [25], including one in another language[26], multiple participants who have testified here in support of its inclusion, and arguably less notable sister chess variants which have yet rightfully been gained existing entrance into Wikipedia. Gregorytopov 20:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refutation of Refutation. I've just taken the time to actually sign up to your site and take a look at these statistics you've mentioned - the "100 active games" you keep citing appear to be from a tournament of just ten people playing against each other in a round-robin fashion, which makes it quite a disingenuous statistic. I've had bigger water pistol fights than that. --McGeddon 20:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, and wilfully unencyclopaedic - the Crescenters have at least conceded to giving a straightforward encyclopaedic explanation. SR Chess just appears to be a joke chess variant that can't be played outside of the author's website. --McGeddon 18:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refutation. The article is intended to be straight-forward and factual, and not the perpetration of a hoax, and I welcome any suggestions for improving it to make it more encyclopaedic. It is as well-sourced and at least as notable as chess variants already on Wikipedia like Penultima, Multiple move chess, Monster chess, Madrasi chess, and Colour chess. I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia, so please bear with me as I try to conform to the excellent standards of material here. Please feel free to give me guidance in making the article more encyclopaedic, and I will gladly revise it accordingly, since admitted weaknesses in presentation and style warrant revision and editing, not deletion. Gregorytopov 19:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right that there are some bad chess-variant pages around (Colour chess is insanely incoherent), and I'd support a delete on those as much as this. For your article to be cleaned up, the "Rules" section should either be clarified to "you toss a coin before each move to see whether to move randomly, and make stuff up to sound funny, and that's it" or at least explain that the software it runs on has hidden algorithms, if that's what this is about. It's very tough reading at the moment for anyone who's wondering what the game actually is, and "too complex to summarize" sets off all the usual hoax alarms. But eh, whatever you reword it to, I'm still not convinced that it's a sufficiently notable game. --McGeddon 20:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game is notable because of the way it deals with the rules of chess. I agree that the current article needs heavy revision to fit Wikipedia standards, but as a chess variant the game is innovative. It's unfortunate that the game is linked so heavily to Mornington Crescent like history, but the gameplay is unique and deserving of a proper write up... with the fictional history left as a subsection rather than the focus. neoliminal 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A real, legitimate chess variant; furthermore, it is reachable from among other pages Fizzbin, which article details a wholly fictitious game with no real-world rules or players. As such it not only exceeds whatever standard might be seen to apply to Fizzbin and Mornington_Crescent (game) but is demonstrably a part of the preexisting edifice of knowledge about abnormal or whimsical game variants.KASchmidt 20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exceeds? Fizzbin is a Star Trek thing, so has a considerable audience and presumably gets played by Trek fans occasionally. Mornington Crescent has been part of a popular UK radio show for 34 years and is played constantly on a number of dedicated web sites. I haven't yet seen any evidence that Stanley Random Chess beats either of these, that it's anything more than a jokey game played by ten friends on one web server. --McGeddon 21:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that you like Nomic. While played by very few people, this game is notable for it's rules!!! This is exactly why this entry needs to exist. The rules are what make SRC notable... which are unfortunately hidden in a Mao-esc secrecy.neoliminal 04:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is just as notable as most other chess variants which have Wikipedia articles.
  • Comment from nominator. The article has been cleaned up and the hoaxy-elements inserted by the brand-new editor (who has shown a good attitude and learned fast) have been removed, so I think that we can now discuss the artice based purely on its notability. While I'm not withdrawing the nomination (which I don't have the power to do even if I wanted to) I am personally changing my vote to Keep, see below. Herostratus 22:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's chess. Chess (IMO) has a special status in human intellectual endeavor, IMO it is a field coequal in important ways to (although very much smaller than) music composition, art, and so forth, and a proper encyclopedia should recognize this. So if 100 people are playing this, that IMO is much more notable than if 100 (or 10,000) people are playing some variant of Pokemon or Magic:The Gathering or whatever. It sounds like a valid and reasonably useful extension of chess. Per the arguments above that it's accepted as such, I say keep.

Herostratus 23:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. The author of this article invented the game and it is played only by him and nine others on one website. 194.178.109.250 10:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. While it's true that only one internet chess server currently can support online play of SR Chess (and for the record, it should be noted that schemingmind.com is in no way whatsoever my web-site, I am merely a registered member there along with many others), it should be mentioned that:
1. On more than one occasion Stanley Random Chess has been the subject of discussion in chess newsgroups and other websites (I even came across one instance where a user observed that he had checked Wikipedia trying to find accurate information about it); SR Chess was even referenced here in Wikipedia on the Chessmaster page prior to the creation of this article.
2. The number of people who play it is certainly not limited to 10 (although the question could be asked whether this would be true of some other chess variants with Wikipedia articles), in fact I'm not even participating in the present tournament involving 10 players. The game has enjoyed an active and growing player base ever since its creation, which suggests it is not a mere novelty destined to enjoy only 15 minutes of fame.
  • General comment. As an aside, and as a newcomer to Wikipedia, I'd like to express appreciation for the patience shown me in learning how Wikipedia works, and for Wikipedia itself. I'm very impressed with and appreciative of the rigorous process required for publication here. In my ignorance, I was mistakenly of the impression that any Tom Dick or Harry could post their wild theories here (not that I counted myself among them). I'm finding that the method of peer consensus to approve and moderate content is very effective - I know that my article has already benefited from that, and rightly forced me to reshape its original form. I have learned from my experience with this that I can trust Wikipedia content to be quite reliable! Although I recognize that the article on Stanley Random Chess probably needs some further work, I have already made significant changes to the way it was originally submitted, and I now realize that in its original form, it was quite unacceptable and would (correctly) have raised many flags of alert. It should be noted that several of those who expressed themselves in favor of its deletion, did so in response to the article in its original form, not its present revised state. I hope that in its present revised form, with some further improvement and editing, can eventually be regarded as appropriate, honest, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Gregorytopov 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bottom line here is that it's not a hoax. That was what the AfD was called for and it's clearly not true. If you want to make some other point then we should start the voting over with that in mind. I hope the admins realize this and consider that some people have voted delete and then not come back to view further comments.66.65.152.2 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm new to the AfD process, so forgive me if this is explained somewhere obvious, but - is this how the process actually works? The AfD page just says that "Articles for Deletion (AfD) (formerly Votes for deletion) is where Wikipedians discuss whether articles should be deleted.", and I don't see how this rules out a discussion that moves away from the initial point. It looks like the system has been changed from "Votes for Deletion", so it's not about vote counting any more, it's about debate. So long as we don't delete this article purely for being a hoax, I don't see a problem. --McGeddon 02:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's acceptable to delete an article for reasons other than the nominator's. It is desirable for people to reassess their opinion if new information develops, but we cannot assume that someone has simply not returned to view further comments (I, for example, have kept an eye on the page and am still not convinced, so my opinion stands). Ziggurat 02:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Ziggurat and McGeddon. The AfD and the votes still stand. As with Ziggurat I have also kept an eye on the debate after my initial vote. And I still say delete because even if not patent nonsense; I have yet to see any evidence of the encyclopedic nature of SRC as compared to the aforementioned backyard water pistol competition. Just being a chess variant is not sufficient. If it is being played by 10 people (or even 100 people) that too is not notable. The question is, is it a well-known and significant chess variant or not? IMO neither the above argument nor the sources demonstrate that it is. Marcus22 16:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too am still following this discussion and I still see this as a non-notable chess variant. No Guru 18:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite it being an article I submitted that's up for debate, it seems to me entirely reasonable that even if the original ground for proposed deletion turns out to be spurious (as in this case, since SR Chess is not a hoax), if other grounds are raised that potentially warrant deletion, a discussion and debate on these new grounds is entirely legitimate. Even though I don't find these new grounds convincing yet, a debate about them is quite fair. Gregorytopov 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As an aside, why does the article refer to normal chess as "Simplified SR Chess"? Isopropyl 18:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the paragraph "Parody and Humor", under "Historical Origin", where it states: "Players contribute to a growing tradition of humorous fiction about the game's origins, making exaggerated claims that modern chess (which SR Chess enthusiasts contemptuously refer to as "Common Chess" or "Simplified SR Chess") is merely a simplified form and development from SR Chess." Gregorytopov 19:02, 28 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 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure (club night)[edit]

Delete I don't think club nights deserve encyclopedia entries. This is spam.--Yannick 05:01, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slam (band)[edit]

  • Strong keep. It doesn't? You may want to read through it again. Formed in 1994 with multiple albums on a label (don't know how big Soma is in Scotland) and they appear to be known in the techno scene. See the allmusic and soma websites and google. Gflores Talk 05:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Relevant criterion is "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Soma records was co-founded by Slam.--Yannick 01:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Well known and established artists in the electronica scene. Encise 06:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we need an expert's opinion--how many people in Scotland have heard of Fountains of Wayne? M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Slam are well known and successful recording artists. Their track "Positive Education" is considered a "classic", as is "Lifetimes" (awarded BBC Radio 1 Pete Tong "Essential New Tune" upon its release ). I live in Australia and have purchased Slam recordings, read about them in numerous print articles and seen them headline at a large capacity venue. AfD for Slam? That's like labelling "Paul Oakenfold" as NN! Encise 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Relevant critria are "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award," and "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)."--Yannick 01:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Yannick, you're quoting only two of the notability criteria. And actually they meet one of them - they will have been written about in many magazines, some of them major like Mixmag. Amongst others they meet are "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country", "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources" and "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture". They also have entries in All Music Guide [27] and Discogs [28]. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Furthermore, they are guidelines. An act could be hugely notable whilst failing most parts of WP:MUSIC (c.f. the Velvet Underground circa 1967). --kingboyk 19:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Well known in the techno scene, and not just in Scotland. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Slam and Soma are both well known on the scene. I'm not from Scotland, but I've heard of Slam, Soma, and Fountains of Wayne - why do you ask? --kingboyk 14:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if no links to these so-called mag articles surface on their page. It's rather cheap to start your own record label and any band/artist can start their own label and release any number of discs that never mean a thing. Also, provide NOTABLE artists on the bands label if it is indeed a notable independent label with a roster of notable talent. Showtime203 04:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, of the two main dance music magazines in the UK Muzik magazine has now closed down and Mixmag don't publish their articles on the web. Believe it or not, but there is a world outside www! AMG has them, which is usually considered a pretty indicator. I will however have a search for a few more entries. --kingboyk 13:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC) OK, Soma. The article isn't about them, and Slam are probably their most famous act, although they have other artistes such as Desert Storm and Ege Bam Yasi who are well known to dance music afficionados but probably won't get articles here. BBC article on Slam, "Glasgow's premiere techno twosome". Plenty of Google hits, see [29]. --kingboyk 13:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re. the BBC review - I don't think that a short review counts as being "featured". We are all open to the possibility that this is an underground wonder well reported outside the internet, but please cite specific articles. But whatever happens, please understand I will hold no grudge if I am outvoted or proven wrong on this AfD.--Yannick 15:39, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue N Purple Marketing[edit]

Non-notable marketing company / advertising. Prod tag was removed by User:202.182.168.190. -- Cnwb 05:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as clearly non-notable per WP:CORP. Joe 05:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly non-notable corp. Bucketsofg 05:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its sister page, Chimera Bali, is currently a speedy deletion candidate. Isopropyl 05:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable.--Blue520 09:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn with a venegance! Lankiveil 11:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:31, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TimberWolf Content Management[edit]

Appears non-notable per the proposed standard WP:SOFTWARE. Its forum has received less than 100 posts in total. The "official website" is presently non-accessible. Wikipedia is not a software directory. The article's author has failed to provide sources for the notability of what appars to be his own CMS ten days after being asked to. Contested PROD. Sandstein 05:33, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypernetworking[edit]

  • Delete Not a real word. No universal definition. 241 hits on Google Yannick 05:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Well, it has more hits than me, but I think it should go. M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Heck, I think I have more hits than that. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 884 hits for "Killer Chihuahua"--Yannick 00:57, 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 Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted article and short article lacking context. Capitalistroadster 08:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teh sex[edit]

completely useless M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Entire contents: "Panthrax - the self proclaimed moderator for totse and admin at such places as Panthrax-nation". Agreed, completely useless. --Lockley 06:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense (CSD G1).--Dakota ~ ° 06:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as gibberish. dbtfztalk 07:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • teh deletes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense (CSD G1) per Dakota Esquizombi 08:26, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. jude academy[edit]

has no content M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:35, 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 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotherapy[edit]

Vanity advertisement for original research. The UK press did not "describe" the subject; it quoted the author's description.

For Clarity, the term 'A New kind of Environmentalism' was used by the author of the article 'The Force of nature' Hugh Wilson for The Independent newspaper on 29.08.05. to describe the work of some Ecotherapists - myself included & named. Graham Game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.2 (talk • contribs)

This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 06:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising and verging nonsense. Robin Johnson 13:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Spearhead 22:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant ad and vanity per nom. Kuru talk 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:31, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie schurr[edit]

Prod by Kinu contested. With apologies to Kinu, and because I think he well stated the reasons for which deletion is appropriate, I'm stealing his justification from prod: "Non-notable author: three low-ranked books listed on Amazon, all published by Lulu Press (self-publishing house) or Lotus Books (subject's own press). Few relevant search results for "melanie schurr"+author. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Also suspected that article is created by subject." Userfy (if user so desires) and delete. Joe 06:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my original PROD; userfy optional. --Kinu t/c 06:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if it can be shown that the author is the subject, delete outright if not. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 11:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced vanity article. Doesn't really look like a misplaced user page, but the subject/author can userfy it if she likes. Robin Johnson 13:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nn/vanity per Mr. Kinu (et al.) Kuru talk 05:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to reach encyclopedic notability. Deli nk 21:40, 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 Speedy Keep; article stubbed, nom withdrawn. I'd like to point out that far from being an incorrectly brought AFD, the article as it stood when nominated was actually speedy deleteable under CSD G1. kingboyk 13:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. M. Reynolds[edit]

Empty article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have left a note in MKoyle's (the authors) talk page asking him to turn into an article as soon as possible. I will create a short stub for him in the meantime. There is some evidence that he is a notable English writer from the Victorian era.[30]

Capitalistroadster 08:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Stub now created hopefully establishing notability. Capitalistroadster 09:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Should be an early closure shortly I'd predict. Harro5 10:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as above. The practice of rapidly tagging articles-in-progress for deletion shortly after their initial creation is damaging to Wikipedia, and consistently raises WP:AGF issues. What harm is there in waiting, especially when the original author has a solid track record? Monicasdude 14:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster, but this article should not have been created until someone had time to at least make it a proper stub. Esquizombi 16:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalist. I agree entirely with Esquizombi and disagree entirely with Monicasdude, I should say, as to the propriety of one's tagging an article for deletion when the article is in progress. Articles should not be created in such rudimentary forms as are insufficient to establish notability or encyclopedic worth or quality. Joe 18:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep hmmm...am I allowed to unrecommend for delete? M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You most certainly are. --kingboyk 13:10, 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 Speedy deleted as test page. Capitalistroadster 09:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Volkman[edit]

non-notable M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not only nn, but is technically empty. Looks like just a test page. Anabanana459 06:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, it's just an error message. -- Kjkolb 09:15, 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 keep. W.marsh 02:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cdigix[edit]

Putting this up for deletion as advertising. Article does not appear to claim notability as per WP:WEB, but I'm bringing this to AfD to allow debate on this point (so that would be a delete from me unless convinced otherwise). Petros471 22:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes. JIP | Talk 06:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like advertising to me. Ehurtley 08:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm...weak keep if rewritten so as not to look like an ad, and if some citations are provided to substantiate their claims. Duke University and 50 campuses subscribing to the service may indicate that there's more to this than some start-up trying to get their name out. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes both WP:WEB and the mor appro WP:CORP as there are numerous newspaper articles which have the company as a subject - most of which appear to be non-press releases [31]. Seems to meet the common sense criteria as well (per Mr. Bugwit). Kuru talk 05:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, it really, really needs to be translated away from "ad-speak". Kuru talk 05:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kuru. Cleanup appears to have progressed already. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The falwell game[edit]

non-notable: only 114 hits in google M1ss1ontomars2k4 07:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as nn and WP:V Esquizombi 08:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the content can be verified, it should be merged into Jerry Falwell; if not, delete. Chris Chittleborough 17:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Even if contents can be verified, it's still NN, even as part of the larger Falwell article. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 21:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Unsourced and unverified. If any of it can be shown to be true, you can merge it with Jerry Falwell. Reyk 21:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- In the 1980s a gentleman in Atlanta was prosecuted for programming his computer to call Falwell's 800 number once a minute. It received widespread press at the time and is referenced widely (Google combinations of "Lynchburg Atlanta Falwell 800"). Verify and merge (into Jerry Falwell) if a sufficient primary source is located. Cleanr 20:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: Then give that guy an article, not the supposed "marginal movement". That Google search says nothing about "Falwell Game". —Wknight94 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Verification had better be CBS and ABC and a John Stossel piece, etc. or else it's just another bit of blogcruft. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:04, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Other Gods[edit]

While a funny article, this is clearly about an unknown college band, probably started by the author of the article. Found no other information about this group anywhere else. ShunnedOne 07:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An unsigned band with no Google results that broke up a decade ago? Yeah, I say speedy delete this one. Ehurtley 08:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the original author—this is a sandbox experiment that got out of control—sorry. It can definitely be deleted. I've done real work since then (Polythiophene) that this was good practice for. Dflanagan 18:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:31, 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 keep. Sango123 (e) 00:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castel School Guernsey[edit]

non-notable; no real content M1ss1ontomars2k4 07:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This must be the first time I've ever voted to delete a school, but if that's all there is to say about the school, it's better to delete it and recreate it later when we have more info. JIP | Talk 10:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, now it's at stub level. --kingboyk 18:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Delete in agreement with the above rationale. (If article improves substantially let me know and I'll probably change to keep) --kingboyk 14:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rewritten and now has a link, but it should not have been nominated as this page isn't for cleanup. Bhoeble 18:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it's not, but the article as it stood wasn't even a stub. Deletion would have been the right result, and wouldn't have precluded recreation of a more substantial article. Furthermore, as often happens, it looks like AFD listing has stimulated some improvements, which is all well and good. --kingboyk 18:36, 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 most likely delete. This article was speedy deleted as offensive, trollish nonsense. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun-Nazi[edit]

Delete. per WP:WINAD, as a slang term with growing use it may belong in a dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. Beyond definition, content is speculative and frivilous. Rockpocket 07:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete If you delete it, doesnt that make you a Fun-Nazi? Bill the Bear 07:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Belongs in Urban Dictionary. Ramanpotential 07:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is frivilous. If it belongs in a dictionary, then with this amount of information, it belongs in an encyclopaedia too.

Delete. Beyond the definition, content is highly speculative at best. --Chris 07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (Please don't edit my signature, thanks.)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. You all must realize that by deleting this article you have simply provided reference for it. By deleting it you are all Fun-Nazis. If you delete it you will only enhance its credibility. Please rethink your decisions. --Rakamamakmak 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, by keeping the article, fun-nazism will become even less notable. We wouldn't want that to happen, would we? Delete. David Sneek 08:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it, it seems like a good article to me. It is a slang term, but i think it requires a bit more information that urbandictionary 24.16.148.14 07:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont DeleteI dont know about you, but the word "Fun Nazi" is taking on a life of its own in my area. Everyone on campus is saying it! I think as the stories come in, this will be a good article. I say give it a chance. The madscientist 07:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO delete I agree with keeping it, most urban dictionaries don't provide nearly the amount of reference that this article does.

Dont delete This is a good, informitive article about the meaning behind the word that many of us hear but dont know what to think of it. --Compman11 07:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete I saw this come up and I really like it. I think it fits the criteria very well for an encyclopedia article. its more than speculative --Crazycrazycrazy 07:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compman11 and Crazycrazycrazy seem to be sock puppets -- check their contributions. —This unsigned comment was added by Crazycomputers (talk • contribs) ..

(WP:SOCK)--Jimbo Wales has said, "It's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason."-I consider the spread on info on Fun-Nazism a very very good reason —This unsigned comment was added by 71.112.39.164 (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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of signatories of the Declaration of Sentiments[edit]

Listcruft. Move to wikisource and delete. Ezeu 07:18, 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 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moatsad[edit]

  • Delete.Uhhhh, what? CharacterZero 08:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only Google results are from Wikipedia and its forks, and this odd page. - Tangotango 08:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not patent nonsense, but not for a lack of trying. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense (CSD G1) otherwise delete per WP:NOT. Esquizombi 08:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is fiction, then someone should provide a source. If someone thinks this is real, then the article is just nonsense. Actually, let's just save the effort in trying to figure it out. Delete. --Elkman - (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this very Bad Wolf article. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no context and close enough to patent nonsense to count. Kuru talk 05:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:31, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sequart.com[edit]

See also a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Darius. The site doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:WEB and the article cites no references. The lead claims the site to be one that publishes news, editorial columns, interviews, annotations, critical essays about the medium of comics, and the Continuity Pages, a hyperlinked study of families of characters by continuity rather than by title and date. The critical essays aren't peer reviewed and the whole site can be regarded as Julian Darius' personal website, per [32], "Sequart.com began in 1996 in the form of various writings on comics by Julian Darius on his personal website". Neither the site nor Darius have, as of yet, established notability within the comics scholarship field. Contributors to the site mentioned in the article are not notable within the field. The controversies described in the article reads to me as no different to any other internet message board spat. The books the site publishes are published through CafePress.com. At this present time, I don't think the site has established enough notability within its field to warrant an article, since wikipedia is not a web directory. Considering all of the above, I'm proposing deletion with no prejudice against a new article when notability has been established. Hiding talk 08:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No demonstrated notability. Bucketsofg 16:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on the fence but would tend towards inclusion. Site does meet WP:WEB. The critical essays certainly are reviewed by site staff, which is no different than other sites. I don't see how the site's ties to its original creator or how it publishes its books are relevant here. I wouldn't call myself an inclusionist, but would tend towards including this one. Twenty or so staff members, a book line, convention presence, strong traffic, some coverage in press -- this qualifies for me. I agree about the controversies part, tho, which should go. 23 March 2006
  • The site's T-shirts are through CafePress.com, not the site's books. Esquire also uses CafePress.com. 24 March 2006
  • Comment: Please explain how the site mets WP:WEB, as this would influence the discussion. I also apologise, the site's only book is published through Lulu.com. I'm not convinced one book constitutes a book line. Deteails of the press coverage would be a help. Hiding talk 12:56, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stelzner[edit]

Looks like a vanity page -- and seems to be one, judging from its history page -- Mareklug talk 08:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Yeah, obvious vanity/advertising page. Ehurtley 08:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now, I think this might actually be notable, despite the apparent self-created vanityness of it right now. But I'm not going to try and verify it on a weekday night at 3am. Maybe later. Grandmasterka 09:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – definitely vanity/advertising as above. Moreover, any article using the phrase "one of the world's leading authorities" needs corroboration, as do phrases like "most downloaded guide to ...". As of now, this sounds like the claims I get in pop-up ads. Finally, if this guy is such a genius marketer, presumably he could write the article in such a way that we would be compelled to consider it important?  ;) --Deville (Talk) 13:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanspamvertisement. Bucketsofg 15:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As one of the worlds leading spam-ad-vanity pages. Marcus22 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think an article on this guy's website, WhitePaperSource, would pass WP:WEB. The salvagable material should be kept there. Then delete the vanispamcruft. Alba 23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and send author a white paper on what constitutes encyclopedic notability. Eusebeus 18:07, 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 transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underserved[edit]

Dicdef, seemingly without the possibility of being expanded to a wikipedia-worthy article Kcordina Talk 09:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after a merge, this is definitely a candidate for Wiktionary. Also, I think this information could be integrated into the article on Health care quite easily --Deville (Talk) 13:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and transwiki to Wiktionary per Deville. Alba 23:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no potential. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:49] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBuzz[edit]

There is insufficient knowledge -- hmmm, maybe that's the wrong word -- that this device is iNotable. iDelete. --Nlu (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Google shows that there is a quite a "buzz" over this product.[33]. PJM 12:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of media mentions, such as [url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/adult-toy-creates-buzz-for-ipods/2006/01/10/1136863229124.html here].
  • Sad to say, keep. 'tis yet another "truly fantastic" technological product of the 21st century. Seemingly most popular with those whos brains (or other organs) are on the insufficient side. And after all, who cares that we are melting our world or destroying one animal species after another so long as we can come up with gizmoesque bits of crap like this...... Marcus22 16:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:49] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uber street[edit]

advertising for something without google hits Stone 10:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag as stub. With 10+ animations made and a reasonably professional-looking website, they look real enough to me. Stefanf 12:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but as stub. --Soumyasch 12:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because they have no google hits dosen't mean they dont belong here. Seems to be notable, so keep. If we judged everything on google hits why not scrap wikipedia and just redirect searches to goolg.e Mike (T C) 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if they do have a professional looking website, it's still advertising for a NN company Marcus22 17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems more like advertising than an article, and poor advertising at that. Get rid of it. TgC 18:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; does not seem notable... most Google hits are about the street itself. And I think Google hits are a pretty reasonable indicator of how notable a company in animation/film is (or in this case, isn't). --Kinu t/c 20:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as adcruft. Alba 23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability tests. Insufficient context for expansion. No claims of notability in article. cmh 00:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, advertising. Dlyons493 Talk 13:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per cmh. --Karnesky 16:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:49] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 (e) 00:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project NetBoard[edit]

Not notable - about 300 google results. Does not meet requirements of WP:Software Sleepyhead 10:53, 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supremo Gophero[edit]

Delete nn band per Wikipedia:Notability (music) Gimboid13 11:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 13:01, 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 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memorable ODI batting performance[edit]

  • Delete because it inherently and unavoidably violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, as discussed on its talk page. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Stephen Turner above. Also List of One-day International records will cover many of these in an NPOV way, and where "memorable" means lesser feats that have influenced the outcome of a significant match there are ways and means within individual biographies etc to record these in an NPOV way. Johnlp 12:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also WP:V. This article fails those tests easily I'm afraid. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very article is against NPOV Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It'll really be hard to maintain this article to Wikipedia's standards. It's a good time to delete as very little work has been done. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious inherent POV and OR.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Muchness 15:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above comments. -dmmaus 23:03, 27 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. Sango123 (e) 00:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Salvation Army halls in Lincolnshire[edit]

This gallery is not really needed. There is one image in the gallery, and this image has been listed as a possible copyright violation Rhyddfrydol 11:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Hyphen5 04:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; galleries of pictures of buildings that are non-notable on their own are pretty unencyclopedic. --Kinu t/c 07:47, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Vicario[edit]

Delete Almost none of the information contained in this article is creditable or true. In fact it attempts to humorously degrade Frank Vicario's character.

  • Speedy delete, A6. Tagged. The subject doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion [35]. Merge per kingboyk is fine. PJM 12:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Assuming Snapcase are notable enough to stay, a merge to Snapcase would be best. Doesn't seem to be much to say about this guy beyond his membership of that band. --kingboyk 14:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Per Kingboyk, the information in his article can be stated in the Snapcase article. Working at the apple store isn't notable, and as the band never made it too big, and is now defunct, I'd say a merge is the best course of action. --lightdarkness (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per kingboyk. --Rory096 04:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Where does this stuff come from? — Mar. 29, '06 [06:50] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Acolytes (comics). Sango123 (e) 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nance Winters[edit]

Nonsense. Prod was objected. Ezeu 12:14, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth and Magic[edit]

Delete - Appears to be nothing but nonsense. Stefanf 12:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per WP:NFT. PJM 12:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article should refer to the production of pewter collectibles by the firm Tudor Mint but I can't find any relevant articles to redirect into. MLA 13:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete patent nonsense and original 'research' Bucketsofg 15:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:31, 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. Sango123 (e) 04:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pethuel[edit]

  • Delete, IP created article that had bio context and reference tags on since October of last year and there have been no significant changes. Fails WP:V because it has no references and with only one sentence doesn't even qualify as a stub (three sentences). Jersey Devil 12:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, it might be merged with Joel, but since its contents are so thin and already there a simple delete is in order. Bucketsofg 15:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is seemingly nothing more that could be added to this than what "Pethuel" means (and I've seen at least five radically different explanations) and that it appears in Joel 1:1. Would be an eternal substub. Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people) in that his only contribution is being the father of Joel, according to Joel 1:1. Esquizombi 15:59, 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; merging and deleting is a pain in the ass (at best), since the GFDL requires the preservation of the content's history. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaba's ancestors[edit]

Sahaba article would be dominated by this list. --Striver 16:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, JerseyDevil, but this is a useful referent to a large set of Muslim pages. Therefore, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm going to have to go with rename, keep and cleanup on this one. Alba 23:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems to be usefull for readers. But current design is not easy to understand --Ugur Basak 01:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to Sahaba - No consensus in AfD doesn't set precedents and neither does a category created within 10 minutes of nomination of this article. The Sahaba are notable for their association with the Prophet Muhammad but that doesn't mean their ancestry also becomes notable. It would be better for Striver to focus his attentions away from creating single-person family trees and move towards creating a dynastic family tree centred on the first five leaders of the Muslim community - the Prophet Muhammad and the four Rightly Guided Caliphs. I suggest the Family tree of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt as a guide to how such a family tree should be portrayed. Focus Striver, focus! Green Giant 01:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, their ancestry is also notable, you can often find the patronymics for up to 5-6 generations going back. --Striver 19:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to Sahaba as above. Separate family tree nodes for each person are hard to read, better in their proper context, i.e. the person's entry. Maybe separate family tree for very notable families (families, NOT people, and very notable.) Weregerbil 12:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to Sahaba as above. MaNeMeBasat 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's too large for the Sahaba article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT keeps slipping into WP:Didn't used to be. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:52] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis day[edit]

Apparent hoax. "An Internet-based phenomenon" that produces zero hits during a Google search.[36] Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 talk 12:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - Randwicked Alex B 13:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 13:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Definitely a hoax, I checked myself, no Ghits--Deville (Talk) 13:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax. Bucketsofg 15:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{hoax}} and tagged as such.  (aeropagitica)  16:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Besides, exactly who posts stickers about how great vaccination is? -- Mithent 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT delete per nom. I bet you'd post a sticker if you weren't infected. But luckily there is hope. Prevention is better than a cure. But the post bit means we have both. - Whitecolours Natty G 21:27, 24 March 2006 (Daylight Savings Time)
Comment: Whitecolours (talk · contribs) has a total of three edits --Allen3 talk 12:03, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When we two parted[edit]

Delete. Page contains nothing but text of a poem that's already at Wikisource.[37] --Calair 13:09, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Oosterman[edit]

Vanity page Andyru 13:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I (William Oosterman)am no longer at Citywide both they and I would prefer that the bio is listed as seperate. It fits very well into the Canadian Clergy seciton. Andyru is a former Elder who resigned while at Westboro Baptist. If you check all his contributions he is on a campagin to discredit me and support Roy Lawrence the pedophile who snuck into our church under false pretenses and became Associate pastor, causing an incredible amount of damage. First Andyru posted a number of blatant lies about me on my page, now he is trying to have it removed. Take that into consideration during this "hearing". —This unsigned comment was added by Williamo1 (talk • contribs) .

If you are indeed Rev. Oosterman (and I have no reason to doubt that), your own edit history on this and related articles doesn't help your case, unfortunately. Be sure to read WP:VANITY, and you may want to reconsider contributing to articles about yourself and closely related organizations. Powers 15:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Williamo1, I think a basic problem you have to realize, is that when people who are not famous, make articles about themselves, the only people interested in those article are people who either personally love the person, or personally dislike the person (with exceptions of course). This is one reason why we strongly discourage people from writing bios of themselves, and generally discourage articles on most regular people (or "non-notable" to use our lingo). I'm sure you don't like some of the stuff written about you. But, you can't, and won't be able to control it. Unsourced negative statements about you can be removed, but if somebody puts relevant sourced verifiable facts (or notable opinions), which aren't favorable to you, then you might have to live with that. You should seriously consider supporting deletion, and remove the problem. This is not your personal page, and it can never be what you wanted it to be. A better option would be to go make your own personal web page, at one of many web hosts (free or non-free). Then you can say anything you want, talk openly about your beleifs, and not have critics edit the page. Surely, that's what you truly want. --Rob 16:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Vanity article, apparently begun by Mr Oosterman himself (Ecclesiastes 1:2 springs irresistibly to mind). More importantly, it does not demonstrate the notability of its subject. Oosterman's latest book gets a grand total of 12 hits on Google [38]; his other book, Out of the Gutter, gets four hits[39], of which three direct to non-working links and the fourth...er... comes back to this Wikipedia article. I cannot find evidence of Oosterman's national notability. The "achievements" of speaking at conferences, preaching in foreign churches and "being involved in campaigns" are not what I would describe as notability; ditto the directorship of a non-notable lobby group. And the Google test? Well, a search for "william oosterman" achieves just 76 unique Google hits [40] (my local vicar gets 321). So far as the "college professor" test of WP:BIO is concerned, Oosterman doesn't even appear to be a blip on the radar. Humansdorpie 16:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable bio. Bucketsofg 16:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Delete as being vanity. Although, I might tolerate a new article in the future, by a neutral person. I would love to say Oosterman is totally non-notable. However, he does admittedly have minor notability. He is a minor author, he writes a little piece in a local paper on religion (or he did at one time), he's been quoted for his anti gay mariage views, and his effot to stop women baptist preachers, and given attention because his church had the same name as a more famous one. So, I could see neutral person making this article (if they provided reliable sources to the stuff I just mentioned). But, that's not happened. This article, at this time, is just being used for promotion and/or criticism. Maybe if/when he's more well known, somebody independent will write something. But, this is a tough call, and a fair arguement can go either way. --Rob 16:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he becomes notable, I think you can take it as read that someone will write an article about him. Notable people dont need to write their own. Marcus22 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity article. Skeezix1000 17:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 17:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete...vanity, non-notable. KHM03 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A semi-related discussion is Citywide Church (AfD discussion) (named "Westboro" in article). --Rob 00:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Merge I fear that Oosterman is notable. Google shows reference to him from a number of third party sources. However noxious his views, he has had an impact on the wider stage and Wikipedia should recognize this. However this article is clearly POV in its current state and at least needs tagging for a major rewrite. Gwernol 00:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO as stated above. --Kinu t/c 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article of a nn subject. Eusebeus 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable (note that I have a slight conflict here because I'm currently in an RfC with William). JoshuaZ 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom; being quoted once, even in the national press, does not suddenly vault one into the status of notable, or else there would be too many "notable" people to write articles on.(— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekwriter (talk • contribs) )
  • Delete as vanity. Durova 16:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:53] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as per author's request.  (aeropagitica)  16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Connection (Sydney)[edit]

Delete. I wrote this article then immediately wrote a much better version of it under the title 'Russian Connections in Australia'. This new article renders Russian connection (sydney) obsolete Nick mallory 14:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Just so you know, Nick, if you are the creator and sole editor of an article, you can request it be Speedily Deleted, instead of having to go through the AfD process. Welcome to Wikipedia! =) Powers 14:10, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Abdullah ibn Abbas[edit]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, in particular number 6 on genealogical entries. Jersey Devil 14:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan and Category:Muslim family trees. --Striver 14:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to Abd-Allah ibn Abbas. Do we really need separate articles on the geneaology of every person in Wikipedia? Joelito 15:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per Joelito Bucketsofg 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless you want to see Family tree of Michael Robinson on here? This is unencyclopedic, violates WP:NOT. Mike (T C) 16:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom but merge to Abd-Allah ibn Abbas, reformatting as a paragraph rather than a tree (WP is not well suited for family trees). The AFD for Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan which resulted in no consensus is not a precedent for keeping, nor is the mere existence of a category. Esquizombi 18:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete, and remember to source per WP:V. Alba 23:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete as per Esquizombi. Striver should note two points - no consensus does not set a precedent for keeping this article and it would be better to focus your efforts on creating a genuine family tree for the Prophet Muhammad and the first four Caliphs instead of littering Wikipedia with misguided family trees centred on single individuals. Focus Striver, focus! Green Giant 00:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, its not like i created this yesterday. And i did creat a family tree for them:

And by the way, Ibn Abbas is no way a random single individual. --Striver 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wasn't accusing you of creating them yesterday, but maybe you misunderstood my suggestion. What I mean't was a single family tree which highlights the Prophet and the Caliphs in bold, and around them as many of their relations as you want but keep it in line with Family tree of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt or any of the other Family trees of Egyptian dynasties. That way a reader can look at the tree and see the way that any two particular individuals are related. Ibn Abbas did not exist in a vacuum did he? He was related to several significant leaders of the Muslims, so he should be part of a larger family tree to illustrate this. Does that make any sense? Green Giant


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 (e) 04:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plan 9 (surf band)[edit]

Allmusic has no fewer than four bands called Plan 9 - and this is not one of them. Search on band album name gets <900 ghits. No chart position stated, no evidence of notability (German surf bands are not, I guess, top of the Billboard chart most weeks). Just zis Guy you know? 14:43, 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 Deleted by Syrthiss.  (aeropagitica)  23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kobus van Rensburg[edit]

Person is promoting himself and his incoherent ideas JMK 16:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is more of an attack page than a promotion of ideas vanity article. WP:BIO refers for notability, {{db-attack}} a more likely candidate for the tone of the article.  (aeropagitica)  16:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable subject; attack per aeropagitica. Bucketsofg 16:54, 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. Sango123 (e) 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oslo Pilates Center[edit]

The "first Pilates studio in Oslo", but that doesn't make it notable. 4 Google hits. Punkmorten 16:46, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public cardroom etiquette (poker)[edit]

Nominated for deletion by anonymous user, but AFD process not completed. Completing now. Essexmutant 17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to Public cardroom rules (poker), although I'm not sure that later article needs to be here either. =) Powers 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'd lean more toward merging the rules article into the etiquette article. Merging the etiquette article into the rules article would work too. I don't think deletion is the answer, since this is informative to a prospective player. --Elkman - (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging with rules makes sense to me, with a subtitle for "etiquette" and noting that etiquette breaches are not rules violations and that "generally" applies since there will always be exceptions. 2005 06:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per above arguments. — MSchmahl 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Informative article, separate in content from Public cardroom rules (poker), which gives the formal rules. The AFD'd page gives some of the indefinable social rules that one is expected (not obliged!) to obey. I found the page interesting and maybe one day it'll help me avoid making a fool of myself in public. keep. Robinh 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:54] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus as Mythical Creation[edit]

This article replicates Jesus-Myth and functions as a POV fork Paul B 17:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious objections[edit]

This page was created in response to the extended discussion on the old Jesus-Myth page. "Jesus-Myth" is a term commonly used by Christian apologists to refer to the concept that Jesus is a purely mythical creation. Aside from the title of a book, the term is not used by people who reject Jesus's historicity; about the only time one hears it is in a sneering manner from Christians. Discussion on the Talk page indicated general dissatisfaction with the title.

The Jesus-Myth page to a large extent reflected the Christian view of the idea and was mostly a jumbled, unorganized conglomeration of straw-man arguments until last week. After a great deal of often-heated debate, I re-wrote the page and offered it up for comment under my own personal page. A day passed with only a single minor comment, so I took the initiative to create the page.

It's my personal opinion that the RfD was made by a Christian who objects to the coherent presentation of an argument he passionately believes is profoundly heretical. As such, I believe that deleting this page would be a great disservice to Wikipedia.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote and Comment[edit]
  • It sounds like this is not a POV fork, but rather a combination of a rename and a rewrite. Perhaps the right way to handle it would be to first move the article to the new name, then rewrite it. Before each step, there should be a consensus in support. Alienus 18:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (with talk discussion first) it is entirely a POV fork, as the content in it and in Jesus-Myth are nearly identical. The appropriate action would be to merge it back (with discussion) and propose a renaming on the talk page. One day on a personal page is not sufficient time to get any kind of organised feedback, and it is very inappropriate to simply replace links to a page with your own version, especially when the original page is protected! Ziggurat 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete as POV fork. KHM03 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TrumpetPower!, when you're involved in an edit war with another editor, and an administrator locks the article as a result, it is not appropriate to create an almost identicle article (with modifications that you like) under a new title. Could I suggest that you go back to Jesus-Myth and sort out your problems there? AnnH ♫ 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You don't get to move a page by creating a new one on a different location. Especially not a page that's currently locked. Also, the pious ad hominem against Paul Barlow is not terribly encouraging. john k 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "You don't get to move a page by creating a new one on a different location." -- same reasons. And the term "Jesus-mythers" is used by all the people on the internet infidels Biblical Criticism & history forum who believe that Jesus was an entirely mythical creation, so your objections to the title aren't really valid.Starless and bible black 23:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the proper way to deal with the issues raised by Trumpet is to edit and/or move the article "Jesus Myth". And I agree with my honourable colleague in regard to the bad faith approach towards Paul Barlow. Str1977 (smile back) 23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. as per Ziggurat cmh 01:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maybe redirect to Jesus-Myth? --Hyphen5 04:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CrazyInSane 07:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Editing disputes are handled with dialog among editors in the article, and if that fails, there's a well-defined, well-used procedure for resolving disputes where there is no editing consensus. Merely because it's a POV fork dealing with Christianity, it doesn't become an exception. (If it does becomes a redirect, please use correct case in the title.) patsw 19:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete as per KHM03 and Ziggurat. This would have been better as a subpage of TrumpetPower's user page, rather than as a new article. Consider it TrumpetPower's proposal and deal with it accordingly. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly merge, if consensus can be reached.Mance 09:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not helping find consensus. Jesus-myth used to redirect to Jesus-Myth; author's change of Jesus-myth to point here seems potentially deceptive. Vslashg (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, TrumpetPower! has unilaterally changed all redirects and all references in other articles to point to his own version - that's 32 affected articles altogether. I've reverted them. Paul B 09:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy all POV forks. Content is, by definition, inappropriate for merging, so don't. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:55] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lior Haramaty[edit]

vanity page of user Liorhar. Some 70 Ghits for the name. Also bundling the walled garden articles of VocalTec and Designfenzider, (note the trailing comma) in this AfD.

Followed almost the exact format of article Alon Cohen who shared the founding of VocalTec and the mentioned patent. Reference to the facts can be foud [41] and many other references you can easily find on the net.

    • I'm not questioning the patent or the facts - the issue is WP:Vanity. Cohen didn't write his own article (but I did consider including it in the AfD). Dlyons493 Talk 09:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if not for the simple fact that this was copied from an existing article which shared both the founding of the company and the writing of the patent, and set the facts right. Should one hide behind a false name to do something like that to make it right? (as unfortunately probably is commonly done). This was just setting the facts right, which is what wikipedia is all about.

Regardless of the above - Vocaltec's articles are here because it totally changed the telecommunication scene and the economy behind it - you can expend on that forever, and the effect continues and will continue to shape it for the foreseen future. You're welcome to re-write these articles and actually expending them will probably serve them right.

    • You have a point and I have some reservations about VP:Vanity myself. The history (FWIW) is that I came across Designfenzider, first, thought it clearly non-notable, found it referenced Lior Haramaty created by Liorhar and with few Ghits, then saw a stub for VocalTec. So it all looked like a typical vanity walled garden. On reflection, I agree that VocalTec should be expanded and I withdrew that from AfD once I realised it had a genuine history. Dlyons493 Talk


Thanks, I appreciate that. As for Designfenzider, - didn't have time to write much about it, and maybe I shouldn't because of conflict of interest (although I sometimes think I’m “too objective” when it comes to where conflict of interest is involved…), but the company, and its main designer (Ron Gilad, another article-that-should-be-written), deserve its own article(s) as it has and is influencing the design industry (you can find a lot of reference by googelign and see pages and articles in many publications including a recent one in New York Times’ business section).

Anyway, I believe I made my point(s) and appreciate your sincerity and common sense (always good to chat with someone who keeps an open mind and looks at for solutions that make sense), so at this point I’ll pull out of this issues, and let you take it from here.

Thanks.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy of a helicopter[edit]

Per talk page, everything relevant has been merged into Helicopter. This now seems like a random bunch of lists. vortex talk 17:57, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So where the bloody hell are you?[edit]

Delete because it is too short, uses profanity, and is not important enough to warrant any article. Alethiophile 18:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (I am the article's creator). Your arguments are fairly flawed in my opinion: if it is "too short" then it needs expansion, not deletion (you did only wait less than two minutes after it's creation before nominating for deletion which didn't give me or other editors long in which to expand it). If it uses "profanity" then Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors (note that bloody on it's own exists as an article). Your only argument which would stand up, if valid, is that it is not sufficiently important to merit an article. I would disagree with that since it has received plenty of media attention recently. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established through news links. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheKoG. I have argued here many times that it is not at all inappropriate to tag an article for deletion immediately upon its creation in such cases as the article is altogether insufficient to demonstrate the notability of its subject (see, e.g., here, noting that, if an shoddy/short article is deleted, it can always be recreated in a more evolved form), but this article now is sufficiently expanded as to merit its being kept. I fear that Alethiophile, in view of this nomination and her nomination of Peter North (porn star), does not fully appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored for minors and that a determination as to the article's "offensiveness" (to him/her, for example) is no way relevant to a determination as to its worth or the notability of its subject. Joe
CommentAlethiophile has suggested on my talk page that this was a personal attack. I thought that I properly critcized (albeit stridently) the rationale underlying the nomination but did not write pejoratively vis-à-vis the nominator; to have written that perhaps he/she did not fully appreciate WP:NOT, I thought, was not to criticize the nominator but, instead, to suggest that he/she familiarize herself with policies reflecting a general consensus. Do others believe that I (and other editors on this page who voted "keep" in view of WP:NOT) wrote untowardly? Joe 19:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, I would agree that Alethiophile has shown a lack of understanding of WP:NOT, and I do not consider that to be a personal attack. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least; he actually left the same message on my talk page as well. If I was interested in personal attacks, I probably would not have cited WP:AGF. --Kinu t/c 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uses profanity? Huh? Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at the least for the sake of lack of real reasons for nomination; "too short" is not a reason for deletion (tag it as a stub), and neither is "uses profanity" (or should we delete cunt as well?). While one must assume good faith, I too am a little nonplussed by this nomination and the one for the article on Peter North. It would be a keep regardless, as it is most certainly notable based on the news mentions provided (and there are certainly more; for what it's worth, I originally found out about this on my sub-par local news on which the anchors consider Oklahoma to be "foreign") and the controversy caused. --Kinu t/c 19:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons others have given. KarlBunker 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons above. --Bduke 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on notability as established above. --Elkman - (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This Australian Government ad campaign has made news in three significant countries. It is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 22:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete.In the attempt to reinforce the fact that Wiki is not censored for minors, it appears the article itself has avoided scrutiny. This is unencyclopedic. Encise 00:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. could do with a close up of that girl though.... It is notable as it has made news through parts of the world. --Midnighttonight 00:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I wonder if we have an article for throw a shrimp on the barbie?--cj | talk 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I originally created the article as a redirect to Bloody (where WTBHAY? was mentioned). I certainly think it's deserving of a full article given the amount of media coverage in Australia and the UK. --Canley 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a notable advertising campaign which has caused a great deal of controversy in British-Australian relations and it is well-written. --EuropracBHIT 09:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Entirely notable, for all the reasons stated above. Wikipedia is not censored. Chairman S. Talk 09:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. On one hand, its about an advertising campaign. On the other hand, said advertising campaign is making front-page news in at least three countries (Australia, Canada, and England) due to controversies stemming from the advertisment. -- Saberwyn 10:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. QazPlm 13:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. --Soumyasch 13:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I was interested enough to look up the info, plus, bloody is only considered a profanity when acompanied by context such as intention and social convention. For the world, its only an adjective and only for a minute percent of population its a profanity.
  • So we're keeping this, right? --Sammysam 23:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep. This Australian completely agrees with Saberwyn. —Chris Chittleborough 09:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it weren't for the reaction against it I wouldn't oppose a merge, but as it is it deserves an article in its own right. Andjam 10:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not censored, but do we need this bloody advertising campaign (than we have to put in all others too), you should hit people with something, or your product has no future. The basic concept of advertising today. MaNeMeBasat 14:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Advertising campaigns that cause fuss are usually more successful than the run-of-the-mill ad, but this is an awful amount of fuss. -- Saberwyn 21:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not under this article - I personally think the ad in itself is offensive, but that's not a reason to take it off Wikipedia - it has made major news around the world and is quite notable. However, I think it would be a good idea if we took it out of this page and put it under Tourism Australia who made/commissioned the ad, with a redirect from this page to that one. I note that Tourism Australia doesn't have a Wikipedia page at the moment. (JROBBO 05:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - This is easily a notable-enough current issue. With all due respect to User:Alethiophile his nomination of it probably stems from regional ignorance, and the fact that it uses profanity is not in the slightest bit relevant. Ramanpotential (talk - contribs) 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is the 2006 version of Throw another shrimp on the barbie. -- Chuq 09:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And it's appropriately longer now. I added a section on the parody version of the ad and the small brouha it raised in its own right. -- contribs 03:00 27 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Rob 04:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter North (porn star)[edit]

Delete because it is offensive, pornographic, and can serve no possible purpose. Alethiophile 18:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Strong keep (I'd voted "weak keep" because I wasn't sure about notability, but a quick search surely demonstrates notability) inasmuch as it seems settled that porn stars with sufficient film histories and general following are to be viewed as notable; if there is a general desire that that discussion should be reopened, I'd gladly take part (arguing for adult film actors as notable), but, in the meanwhile, I think "keep" is clearly in order. Notwithstanding one's opinions about the proper disposition of the article, surely one cannot find the article "offensive". Joe 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: "offensive" and "pornographic" are not reasons to delete a page on an actor (adult or otherwise) who obviously meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 18:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I find many things offensive, but I would not want to curb someone else's freedom of expression because of my opinion. "Offensive" and "can serve no possible purpose" is a dangerous, slippery slope. -Keglined 18:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep He's a pornstar. He's done a lot of films. He has a decent amount of name recognition. kotepho 18:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No legitimate reasons given in nom, and North is clearly one of the more notable male porn stars, for what that's worth. Esquizombi 18:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? We can't start deleting information just because someone is against pornography or homosexuality. When someone uses the word "offensive" as a reason for deletion, we're venturing into personal opinion, not objective reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BayAreaGuy (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy keep per Kinu. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously. —This unsigned comment was added by KarlBunker (talk • contribs) .
  • Speedy keep per WP:NOT censored. --Rory096 19:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Obviously notable actor; AfD nomination was based on false premises (although NOT bad faith -- Alethiophile claims to be 12 on his user page). Powers 19:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the most well-known porn actors that exists. Notable, verifiable. Ifnord 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable person. Notable activity? As notable as simulating bodily functions. Verifiable? Rather hearsay concerning the non-notable. Well-known? Subjects in this category may be as well known as a very large trash heap outside New York city. Individual trash heaps are not mentioned in Waste. Lastly, the non-notable and completely inane details contained here can be expected if you are firmly on the road to the non-notable. JMK 22:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable porn star within genre with over 1,000 films to his name. Capitalistroadster 22:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, no valid grounds for deletion cited. Yes, his vocation lacks any real merit. Rob one bank, you're a petty criminal beneath notice here. But rob 1500. . . . Monicasdude 00:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: You must be kidding. Are we going to try to delete Traci Lords next? Or John Holmes (actor)? You know who was really awful? Adolf Hitler. Go ahead and bring him to Afd - I'd like to see that. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: No grounds for deletion, probably put up for deletion as a joke Tooranatan 01:40, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cutmore[edit]

hoax — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhiJ (talk • contribs)

  • KeepDelete That's a great hoax to get him listed in IMDB and such. Small but nontrivial number of hits for "Simon Cutmore" +actor. None of which are useful after review. kotepho 18:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a major leading man, obviously, but certainly enough credits to warrant a listing. There are actors with far fewer credits in WP. Fan1967 18:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, apologies for not signing above. I heard that he was added to the IMDB, as you can add to it in a simmilar way to the way you can add to wikipedia (so I heard). The wikipedia article for IMDB seems to imply this as well. This archive also makes me suspicious [42] "Simon as the face of KFC in Bulgaria"!?, but maybe I'm just being very naive and gullible--PhiJ 19:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong on this, but my understanding is that you can get a person added to IMDB, but the credits come from the actual movies. You can find listings for people with no credits, and those are suspect. Fan1967 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB has been wrong before but I'm going to need more to go on than "my mates said it was a hoax". kotepho 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please people see the Baywatch: Hawaiian Wedding article he's listed as Simon Cutmore as Mitch Buchannon (Body double). Anyone can list themself on imdb.com, just like wikipedia, but we delete them. oh and culminating in the highlight of his career so far, playing ‘Woman on the phone’ in 2002's .com for Murder. Eivindt@c 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if he isn't a hoax. Wikipedia is not here to duplicate IMDB. To be blunt, there are clearly plenty of people over enamoured with the idea of film, and have the idea you have to be in some way important to be in any film, no matter how awful, and these people are wrong. Average Earthman 00:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep I think earlier versions were correct and could be verified, but since then some edits have been made that could be vandalism. With the article reverted back to it's previous state I don't see an issue here. Tooranatan 01:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed (I think strong) evidence that it is a fake on the relevent talk page --PhiJ 12:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete PhiJ's evidence is convincing. Simon Cutmore seems really angry about the hoax on one of the forums linked to on the talk page. Earlier edits still seem like the same basic hoax to me, though thanks for pointing out the possible vandalism Tooranatan. I note your user page was created at the same time as as your post above - it usually take me a few minutes to get between editing pages. Well done! Peter 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I performed a minor edit to this page in the past (just corrected a link) after finding the entry while looking at some filmographies on IMDB. I'm not sure it's a hoax, calling it such suggests there was an intent to deceive people, it may just be an inside joke of some sort. In any event possibly not genuine and as noted previously even if it was it does not warrant inclusion anyway due to the lack of parts this actor has had. Feebtlas 14:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC). Keep. After doing a little research of my own I would like to retract my original post requesting delete and replace it with a keep. I believe that the hoax may actually be on the part of PhiJ, a 'double hoax', if you will. By putting forward a legitimate entry for deletion he may actually be hoaxing us. There is far more evidence that this actor exists than does not. Feebtlas 10:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should_Black_Art_Still_Be_Beautiful?[edit]

It is an advert Peter 18:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is an advert for an upcoming event. Peter 18:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable..." WP:NOT. I think the notability of this event is not yet clear. A lot of the contributors are currently red links so their notability isn't established on wikipedia yet. I hope the event is successful and it looks very interesting, but I don't think it warrants an article here. Politepunk 19:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. -- Mithent 22:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:13, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazee lamont[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BIO — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Poor Google hits (534) but then again was on nationally syndicated radio for several years. Then again it was the Russ Parr Morning Show (1998-2004) - not his own. I'm on the fence on this one. You can look at his publicity bio here and decide. Ifnord 20:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fell off the fence, this person is not even close to Air Force Amy. Non-notable per nom. Ifnord 01:36, 28 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 14:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backslash Podcasting Group[edit]

Non-notable group. 93 Google hits, six of them unique. Was PROD'ed but tag removed by author. Ifnord 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Clarion University has only two networks (academic and residential) and each share a very small IP pool. As a result, all students share a minimum of external IP addresses hence it may seem like there are very few unique hits. We often have a problem on the residential network with AIM because if their servers go down, we all try to sign on at once (because this is automated in newer editions of this program). This causes their servers to boot us off since it sees hundreds of connections coming in from a single IP address. There is no reliable way to determine from outside our campus networks the difference between a unique and non-unique hit. If all 6000+ students were to visit Wikipedia simultaneously, you definately would not see 6000 unique hits on the server-end. That's why I believe the Google comment is irrelevant since the majority of our programming is geared for Clarion University students. --Terranika 06:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Established notability with modifying of entry to include information of the PPP, the largest Pagan Podcasting Alliance on the Internet. They found GIG Cast to be notable (by Wikipedia definitions). Feel free to verify this information yourself with the Executive Board of the PPP. --Terranika 06:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete These podcasts reachout to a greater number of people than first thought. These podcasts are being used by adminstration, management, and others outside of just the Clarion Community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.209.17 (talk • contribs)
    • (IP's first and only edit) --Karnesky 22:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This group is well known in Clarion, PA and a major part of the Clarion Chapter of ACM. The page was created today (March 23rd) and we haven't even announced it on our site yet.BinaryCleric
  • Delete per nom; not notable. --Kinu t/c 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; not notable, and won't BE notable. You've gotta be more than just some local thing. - Liontamer 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN, but also vanity if BinaryCleric is saying what I think (s)he is saying: that this article was created by the podcasters group themselves. --BrownHairedGirl 23:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I attend Clarion almost everyone knows them. A few of their podcasts known further out than the Clarion Area. (Like the Fluffy Free Zone and Techno Thursdays).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.215.240 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Deleteor merge. It is definitely not independently notable (and fails WP:WEB and others). I don't know if it could help another article. Perhaps Clarion University of Pennsylvania or CU Backslash (but I think the latter should also be merged or deleted). --Karnesky 16:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Authore maturely admits not-notability, so let's get this speedied. --Karnesky 15:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CU_Backslash --Karnesky 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CU_Backslash Topics Merged and Notability was Established --BinaryCleric 20:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom --Soumyasch 06:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more blog / pod cruft 213.106.152.192 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Non-notable. incog 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete, podcruft. — Mar. 29, '06 [07:00] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Don't Delete This group is an important part of Clarion University. NaFedaykin


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popko Peter van der Molen[edit]

No apparent notability to this academic (WP:PROFTEST). (User:Stefan.wolfrum understandably has used this to gauge Wikipedia's notability standards; see Wolfrum, Stefan M. (AfD discussion)) —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-23 19:14Z

  • Delete as this article stands it does not meet the academic notability test. Gwernol 19:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — NN. Could find nothing outside WP article in google. There probably should be a page on Reversal Theory. — RJH 18:54, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glassesdirect[edit]

Delete as advertisement. Author has made several good-faith attempts to rewrite the article (see discussion here), but still appears to be promoting the site rather than providing encyclopedic information. No apparent assertion notability other than the belief of the owner that "his company has revolutionised the way Britons buy their glasses".

  • Changing vote to Keep per edits by Sliggy. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:CORP and nomination (although I think Bugwit is correct to acknoweldge that the author has tried to edit the article in order that it should conform to WP norms [cf., the common conduct of authors here upon finding their advertising/vanity pages nominated for deletion]; whatever may be the improvements to the article, though, the subject remains non-notable). In view of the commendable editing by Sliggy, I'm changing this vote to weak keep. There is always the temptation, when presented with the fact of the existence of articles on similar companies (notwithstanding suggestions that they are distinguishable from the subject of this article), to suggest that those articles be deleted as well, but, in view of WP:CORP, which appears to reflect a consensus, I think this article and the others to which posters allude below is about a notable company. Joe 19:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Weak Keep the rewrite - which is a big improvement (but still has

crystal ball aspects) Dlyons493 Talk 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable per Joe. Ifnord 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - this article is very simular to many of the articles found on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:UK_retail_company_stubs. In particluar the company "Littlewoods" has simular content expressing views, such as "However, Littlewoods' home shopping operation continues to be one of the biggest players in the UK market". I would very much like to keep this aricle. Obviously it is not against Wikipedia policies to give details of companies otherwise there wouldn't be the above category. So please could you (rather than delete the article) give me guidance on what I should remove to make it acceptable? I have now removed the quotation Bugwit gave aboveJiff78.
  • Delete promotional, unencyclopedic Tom Harrison Talk 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it quite strange that this article can be found "promotional & unencyclopdic", when there are 20+ others in the category above that have "very" similar content. I would probably agree with you and say delete myself if these articles were also put up for deletion. Could anyone explain to me the difference between them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiff78 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Jiff78, Littlewoods has several assumptions of notability, such as the fact that they have been in business since 1923, and that they have a collection in the National Football Museum, among others. Glassesdirect does not seem to have any assertion of notability. I would agree that the quote you use above could be rewritten so as not to sound promotional, but beyond that, the Littlewoods article is pretty much indisputable. Would it be safe to assume that you have a vested interest in Glassesdirect? --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Littlewoods was a bad example, take SysWear or Dorothy_Perkins, both these articles (there are many others) seem self promoting to me with little other content. I tried to add notability to my aritcle by giving examples of where Glassesdirect had been in the press (now removed), not just because they have been in the press but because of the reason. My main concern is that my article now, is not that different to the others in the above category, but has been singled out for deletion. I have bought many pairs of glasses from this company and have recently found Wikipedia as a very good resource of information, I wanted to share my cost savings with other people. I am also trying to understand Wikipedia's policies for article writing which currently seem a bit hit & miss.Jiff78

  • Keep. I rewrote the article to attempt to meet the corporate notability guideline (which specifically includes national newspaper articles as being acceptable), keeping a neutral point of view and providing verifiable sources. I think it does meet the various criteria now. (But then I would say that, wouldn't I?). Sliggy 23:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you Sliggy, I have a lot to learn when writing articles for Wikipedia, but this experience has given me a good understanding on how not to do it :) Thanks for you time, it is exactly what I wanted to get across Jiff78
  • My pleasure, I enjoyed the challenge. Sliggy 00:26, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Connell[edit]

Notable why? The article says a lot about him but not what he's done that merits an article. CEO of MediaWeb but what's that? Google doesn't say much about him ([43] & [44]). Spondoolicks 19:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Joe 20:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give the article time His article is interesting and I want to see what others may contribute to it.(UTC)
  • Extra-Super-Flaky Weak Keep Oooh, I really want to vote delete for this one because it looks a lot like a vanity page, but the referenced articles are keeping me from pulling the trigger. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable biography. Good for him for leaving school early and pursuing a career in business but he needs to achieve something notable in his chosen field before a WP article is justifiable. WP:BIO refers, also WP:VANITY and Wikipedia:Autobiography.  (aeropagitica)  23:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read nothing to merit an entry. Not notable. feydey 13:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weak/conditional keeps are a good sign that something is very wrong, and nobody wants to admit it. — Mar. 29, '06 [07:02] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nn-bio. Fetofs Hello! 22:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alecia Johnson[edit]

Apparently the founder of a "notorious" street gang called Duece Duece N*. "Alecia Johnson" only returns 285 google hits, none of which mention a gang, while "Duece Duece N*" only returns 16 hits. Also, the person is only 14 years old. I suspect that this page is a hoax. Schzmo 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete a7. nn-bio. I know this is before the nom, but when you edit conflict, can you add this in? I don't have time to wait until you start it. Thanks, Rory096 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Rory. If the article is deleted, with the surely vicious "Duece Duece N" come to get us?? Joe 20:13, 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 01:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software for children: Issues concerned[edit]

Textbook original research, with footnotes and everything. Wikipedia is not a manual on software design, so I can't see how this could be encyclopedic if it were not original research. Sandstein 20:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; WP:NOT a how-to guide on software design; WP:OR applies as well. --Kinu t/c 20:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOR. -- Mithent 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my prod tag that was removed without comment. --Rory096 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:15, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Dillon[edit]

Success first, then an article in Wikipedia... Userfy? Google seems pretty uncertain about this guy as well. Rklawton 20:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN bio. I'm not sure userfy would work unless the author will admit to being the subject since the editor's username doesn't jive with the subject's name. Craig Dillon has also been added here[45][46] by this author --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BIO violation. Closing admin should also delete references added to other pages, noted above.  (aeropagitica)  23:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn bio, as per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, no! You're doing it all wrong. First the subject becomes famous and written about in publications with a wide reader-base, then someone with no connection to the subject writes a sourced, externally verifiable article! -- Saberwyn 09:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Craig Dillon is a valid musician and producer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.246.112 (talk • contribs)
    • Wikipedia doesn't have the server space to list every musician in history. See the Wikipedia:Notability (music) for an idea of the criteria needed to 'merit' an article here. If you can provide sources which are externally verifiable and have a relatively large circulation, there should be few problems with keeping the article. -- Saberwyn 11:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Craig Dillon has a website with some music available for download [47]
    • oh! oh! I have a website. If I put some crap on it to download ('cause no one in their right minds would actually pay for any of my music), can I have a biography here, too? Rklawton 08:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why you sure can! (readys speedy ;)) TKE
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who is this guy? This is a shameless self promo and needs to be removed --Showtime203 1:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:Music TKE 08:21, 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.

===Craig Dillon===

Craig Dillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP Article. Supposed media personality, but can't see how he is notable. Looked at it several times. Reads like a puff piece. Meida personality on youtube but few followers. Fails {[WP:BIO]] and WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Garden Walk Buffalo"[edit]

Advertisement. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is my first time posting on Wikipedia, and I apologize for my faux pas. I'm sure that a lot of the content can be changed to make this less "public relations" (it is not advertising), and more "encyclopedia". Please advise as to how this article can be transformed into something acceptable. It's not clear, based upon seeing a lot of the content out on the website, what make this qualify for rejection while others do not.

The purpose of the post was to communicate a significant non-profit cultural event to the Western New York region, and growing outside of this region as well. Tens of thousands of people flock to this area each year, many coming from out of state as well. Its popularity is growing exponentially.

What makes this event unique is that hundreds of Buffalonians formally organize and volunteer every year to put on an event whose sole purpose is to beautify the city, improve its public image, and create a better type of community. It manages to bridge all sorts of socio-economic barriers, and promotes the community improvement of living conditions to areas of the city that need it.

This event is completely about social change, not money. There is no paid staff. Donations go back into the community in the form of beatification grants, which are used to create community gardens and landscaping.

What is confusing about Wikipedia's policy is that there are many things out there that are pure advertising, and have little or no benefit to the community at large. For example, there is a fast-food chain in Buffalo that has it's post out here. See Mighty Taco at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_Taco . This isn't advertising?

I believe this qualifies because it is a relatively unique and popular yearly event. There are other Buffalo events posted on Wik that are similar to Garden Walk - see Allentown Arts Festival (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allentown_Arts_Festival) and Thursday at the Square(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thursday_at_the_Square). Incidentally, these events are more commercial, and do not distinguish themselves in any way from other public events all over the world.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TSC12[edit]

  • delete: vanity (from its talk page: this page is a curriculum exercise for students...This page will be marked for deletion by the authors, by the end of January, 2006.) Fikus 20:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: vanity page -- Ritchy 20:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 21:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host. --Elkman - (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:15, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken gin[edit]

Non-notable hoax, claiming notability and meme. However, Wikipedia is NOT for something made up in one school day. Was tagged for patent nonsense, however, whilst it is nonsense, it's not patent nonsense.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:54, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BoundlessGallery.com[edit]

Mike Rosoft proposed this for deletion with this summary: "Spam, Alexa rank 151,630 ([48])", but the deletion tag was removed by the creator. Putting it here as the deletion is "contested". —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 23 March 2006 @ 20:55 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 20:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maynard Smith[edit]

Self Promotion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Kappa Alpha - Gamma Chapter at the College of William & Mary[edit]

While a well-written history of this fraternity chapter, it has no business in Wikipedia; individual chapters are well below our standards of notability. Don't let its length deceive you, because it's adapted from a pre-existing source. I suggest we Userfy it for User:Djrobb, the only significant contributor, so that the fraternity can move it to their own webspace: Wikipedia is not a free web host. stillnotelf has a talk page 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This comment was added before User:Stillnotelf got the nomination up): I received a notice that this article is being considered for deletion. I have been the primary contributor to this article and want to do what I can to preserve it. Can you please let me know why it is being considered and how it can be brought in line with the wikipedia rules? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djrobb (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be replying on your talk page shortly. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have refactored some discussion to the talk page. Please continue to post long discussion there only. This is not taking away from the quality of the discussion, merely making sure it doesn't clog up the AFD day page. Stifle 22:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, then delete. I had questions about its notability from the start. Andy Saunders 00:30, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War II atrocities[edit]

Inherently POV article --Philip Baird Shearer 20:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anything can be put in here as an atrocity. For example Hitler and others thought that the binding of prisoners hands by Commandos on Sark and Dieppe raids was an atrocity, so he issued the Commando Order that resulted in a number of war crimes and prosecutions for war crimes after the war. That the commando order resulted in war crime trial with guilty verdicts is documented with reliable and reputable sources, but almost anything which someone at some time thought was an atrocity could end up on this page, because unlike a war crime there is no definition of what constitutes an atrocity in war.
  • There are lots of other pages which cover this area and are subject to some sort of NPOV and can be verified in already been published by reliable and reputable sources. See the list of articles under Nuremberg_Trials#See also. So if this one is removed no useful information on this page will be lost from the Wikipedia project.
  • One further possibility is as there is an Allied war crimes article is to move this one to Axis war crimes which would duplicate information in other lists but would give a central list for disambiguation purposes althought there is a list called List of war crimes which already does this.

--Philip Baird Shearer 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Irredeemably POV. Calsicol 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One big WP:NPOV violation. Surely every action taken by one side in a war can be interpreted as an atrocity by any other side? The list would never be definitive or agreed upon by all contributors.  (aeropagitica)  23:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I contributed to this page too, but your arguments are sound. Delete. Maustrauser 23:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for more or less the reasons cited by aeropagitica!
    The concept of atrocity is indeed inherently POV (your side commits atrocities, whereas mine takes extreme measures for reasons of operational necessity) ... but that doesn't stop an NPOV article being written, as reportage on the controversy. This article is actually just a list of existing articles, and it's one which a historian would find very useful -- not as an objectively accurate list of atrocities, but as a list of events which are frequently labelled as atrocities. As such, it is a very useful point of entry to the historical and historiographical debates.
    I think it does need an introductory section problematising the concept of "atrocity", but that's an editing issue, not grounds for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl 00:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the moment the list includes 3 British air raids and half a dozen American ones. As this was bombing on an industrial scale, if all the air raids throughout the war by both sides are added to this list then it will be huge. If not every air raid then which ones are chosen (Why for example is the bombing of Dresden by the British an atrocity but not the bombing of Dresden by the Americans)? Did you know that there were 262 separate air raids on Cologne alone [49]? It can not argue that some were violations of the law of war (for example because a city was undefended), because the criteria is atrocity not war crime, and some think that all civilian bombing was an atrocity (Bishop G. Bell for one). As it grows, I don't see how this list can be of any use to anyone as "a very useful point of entry to the historical and historiographical debates". --Philip Baird Shearer 02:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Hyphen5 04:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge, do not redirect, do not pass go. Such is the nature of a POV fork. — Mar. 29, '06 [07:03] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAJ[edit]

Advertisement for someone's self-published, internet-only, non-notable book. PROD deleted without comment. Note: Apparently not the same content on which we had an AfD already. Sandstein 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Nomination retracted, has received multiple press coverage per recent additions, borderline notable. Sandstein 09:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I wrote this article. I am a student from Montreal (User: Kieranfox though I'm not logged in right now) and met the author at a reading of this book. Arguments for the article: i) the author link is 'false' because I'm not aware of how to create a disambiguation and write a new author article of someone by the same name. ii) The book is not 'internet-only' but is simply available for free ALSO on the internet. I read it in a hard copy signed by the author, so I know. iii) Is the book non-notable? Have you read it? Do you have any arguments for why there is nothing notable about this book or its author? Does the fact that it is his first book make it irrelevant somehow? Please elaborate. iv) This is in no way an 'advertisement', especially considering the book is available entirely for free and no one stands to gain anything financially from this page; and as my 'relationship' to the author is, well, basically nonexistent. He signed my book once a couple years ago. I put the page up merely because the man and the book are fascinating and the information is well synthesized, PUBLISHED and available to anyone interested in reading it. I read over the What Wiki Is page. Isn't that what this site is supposed to be about, cataloguing and elucidating interesting information that has already been published and established elsewhere? Anyway I appreciate your vigilance, in that this might be construed as some crackpot simply advertising his own crap through Wiki, but honestly I would suggest you give the book a read or quick once-over (it is a short and quick read in any case) and then see if you still find its inclusion so abhorrent. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.160.140 (talk • contribs)

Hello there, and welcome to Wikipedia. In principle, you are quite right about what Wikipedia is - but I also suggest that you take a quick glance at what Wikipedia is not - namely, not a collection of indiscriminate information, or a catalogue of all the books in the world. That means, we only carry information on notable subjects - if we were to have an article on every pamphlet, screed, private thesis or self-published book, Wikipedia would quickly fill with POV cruft, grow unmanageavly large and lose encyclopedic value as a whole.
For this book, this means we need proof that more people than its author (and possibly you) care about it: a wide circulation, a noted scientific impact, substantial press coverage, etc., all through verifiable sources. Hope this helps, and have fun contributing more to Wikipedia! Sandstein 07:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandstein. Your points are well taken, and I have included links to other press coverage that I could find in online format. I have to question the notion though that more people knowing or talking about a thing gives it more value, or a more deserving place in Wikipedia, though in essence the logic is valid... but one need only take a look at pop culture to see the flaws of this argument. I think that if you really believe it's invalid, I would ask you to read over the book (at least in part), and then decide if it is notable or not, rather than assuming that since mainstream academia has passed it by, you should too. That's all I ask. If after some reading you still think any mention of it should be obliterated here on Wiki, I won't fight with the decision. Thanks. (Kieranfox)

The recently added links indicate that the book has received multiple reviews. With (weak) notability thus established, I retract the nomination and vote Keep. That said, no, I won't look through the book. That would be judging its merit, which is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Only notability is relevant (which is why we have an article on e.g. Mein Kampf). Sandstein 09:44, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Abd Shams ibn al-Manaf[edit]

You mean Sahaba's ancestors?--Striver 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you meant the other five you claimed that i didnt had created a article for, when i in fact had done so? --Striver 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am fully aware of the five separate family trees but what I mean is that you should have a single family tree with all five highlighted and then various relations around them. Green Giant 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge if there is something to merge. Family tree snapshots for every person isn't helpful to the reader. I don't know about the notability of the person, is his only claim that his great-great-(some-amount-of-greats)-grandson was notable? The Abd Shams ibn Abd al-Manaf article itself looks like something that would be more informative in proper context, i.e. a family tree (NOT separate family tree for each person, one family tree). Weregerbil 11:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more middle-eastern familycruft. — Mar. 29, '06 [07:07] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hangarmageddon[edit]

nn-song. The album it's from is definitely notable enough, but the one song alone isn't. Any (meaningful/encyclopaedic) content regarding the song is best made on The Dark Side of Phobos's own page. Liontamer 21:50, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Dawning[edit]

nn-song, article mostly comprised of subjective analysis. The album it's from is notable enough, but the one song alone isn't. Any (meaningful/encyclopaedic) content regarding the song is best made on The Dark Side of Phobos's own page. Liontamer 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to The Dark Side of Phobos, with some serious chainsaw-trimming (the lyrics should go, for example, "included with permission" or not...) Definitely not kewl enough for an article of its own, but the contents might be appropriate for the album article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect {{R from song}} Gotta get rid of the lyrics too. — Mar. 29, '06 [07:09] <freakofnurxture|talk>


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Khalid ibn al-Walid[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 01:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navlar[edit]

Non-notable webdesign company; only edited by User:Navlar. Henning Makholm 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only one backlink on Google, clearly insignificant. DMurphy 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- cmh 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the first to add this article and I am new to this - Navlar is a small company, but it has made contributions in Southern Ontario Canada and parts of the US - Please let me know if there is more information I that I can provide to make this entry more complete. I am looking forward to your advice - Thanks -- Navlar 09:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA and Mexico[edit]

Delete Appears to be a narrow pulpit for US-Mexico intolerance. Even if the content was worth salvaging, it should be included in another article like Mexico-United States relations (which I'm surprised doesn't exist, given the lengthy shared frontier), et al., or said article should be entitled properly (e.g., without the abbreviation). And if this is an attempt to treat Mexican-American duality, this article isn't it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is based on a single newspaper article and a single poll, not on any comprehensive research. The subject may merit coverage elsewhere, but only if multiple sources are involved. --Elkman - (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above.--Jersey Devil 00:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MaNeMeBasat 07:00, 28 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 redirected. Melchoir 22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

300 (Graphic Novel)[edit]

Article already exists under the name 300 (comic book). AriGold 22:21, 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 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transistasis[edit]

Neologism. Appears to be limited to English translations of Neon Genesis Evangelion and a few blogs. Excluding Wikipedia, transistasis/homeostasis gets 348/7,260,000 hits on Google and 0/215,000 hits on Google scholar. Melchoir 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. If it becomes established, then it belongs on Wiktionary anyway. FYI, there's a usage here that's consistent with the article [52] (search the page). Slowmover 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although I suppose someone could re-add the content to Neon Genesis Evangelion if they were so inclined. --Alan Au 23:32, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of stock used by Swiss Federal Railways[edit]

Unencyclopedic. I can see lists of the different kinds of railroad stock and even which ones are used by what railways around the world, but an inventory doesn't seem to me to belong here. JeffW 22:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep (I created that article). I cannot find any good reason to delete it in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The only point that could apply is in WP:NOT ("7. Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. [...]"). But since there are many other lists in Wikipedia, I can't find much reason why this one should be bad. Well, it has way more information than most other lists - I can remove that information (then it would be a list like many others), but I don't see why that should make it more encyclopedic. By the way, one reason why that list contains that much information: Many of the locomotives listed there won't get a dedicated article in the foreseeable future (currently only very few have), so this way the most important data about them is nevertheless available. --Kabelleger 22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Eminently encyclopedic. -- RHaworth 22:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not the usual indiscriminate listcruft. Of definite interest to railroad-aholics. Slowmover 22:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above Jcuk 01:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Information on rolling stock is important for the coverage of the Swiss railways. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it belongs to Wiki and has potential for improvement. AntOnTrack 10:17, 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 speedy delete. -- RHaworth 23:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omism[edit]

Author promptly removed a speedy tag so we will give it AfD. Non-notable nonsense religion with four adherents. -- RHaworth 22:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete a7, tagged with db-club. Speedy tags are not prod tags, authors can't remove them. --Rory096 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs closing. -- Mithent 23:04, 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 01:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supa bitch[edit]

Delete, dictdef. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. FreplySpang (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fetofs Hello! 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologism dicdef (485 Google hits). -- Mithent 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. Even if it wasn't, the contributed article this far is very vague and does not define the term at all. --Chris 23:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; WP:NEO; probably some sort of immature attack against a person named Nikhil, per the link provided. --Kinu t/c 23:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as neologism (now, there are a few articles to which I think "supa bitch" could be redirected, but I guess it's best I keep those to myself). Joe 23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 21:37, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

87.9 MHz[edit]

I don't see how one frequency can be important, and I can't find any other articles about a single frequency. I'm open to change my mind if it can be proven that this frequency is somewhat more notable than the rest of them, but right now I'm saying Delete Eivindt@c 22:46, 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. Sango123 (e) 04:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Metcalfe-Ballentine[edit]

Speedy contested, PROD contested. Non-notable per WP:BIO. Created the LANs of the world? Would Google better in that case, I'd say. Likely hoax. Delete. --Kinu t/c 23:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as hoax. "the main creator of LAN connections on the web" says it all. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.--James 00:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: speedy tags are not contestable, unlike {{prod}}. If the author removes it, putting {{nn-warn}} on his talk page will tell him not to do so again. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the second half but not the first:If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." - brenneman{L} 00:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 21:37, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universe United[edit]

On close inspection, it appears that this organisation is only active in the University of Adelaide. Contrary to its claims of notability, it is in fact just a university student organisation, and not a very large one at that. Its lack of notability is also shown by the lack of links, except one placed on the Evangelical Union page by the creator, to which there is only a tenuous link. Sumple (Talk) 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Joe 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Alan Au 23:31, 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 Redirect → Alisyn Camerota. --Allen3 talk 16:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alyson Camerota[edit]

Deletion of this page should happen due to this page only existing due to the incorrect spelling of her name, which is actually Alisyn Camerota, which already exists || Chris 00:40, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin_A._Sabet[edit]

the writer of the page has received annoying/harrasing emails; the writer of the page does not want this information available on the www —This unsigned comment was added by Oxford1 (talk • contribs) .

Comment I am the subject of the page. I am not concerned with info being inappropriate/unreliable, I just do not want to be subject to so many harassing emails, etc. It is a little frightening that you all are so concerned and invested into this article! —This unsigned comment was added by 151.197.60.186 (talk • contribs) .

Response: You need not be frightened. This is pretty much standard operating procedure when someone wants an article deleted. Several of us - including me - are simply not understanding why Oxford1 wants this article deleted when you (assuming you are really the subject) seem to be notable. His explanation is very confusing. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Sorry you are receiving so many emails. Perhaps it would help to think about the fact that it is your notoriety which is spawning the emails. Wikipedia simply tries to document all persons of note, so it isn't directly the cause of these emails. -- cmh 16:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will likely vote delete, in view of the ostensible non-notability of the subject, but surely the reason given in the nomination is categorically insufficient for deletion. While the creator of a page certainly may make a case for deletion when he/she is the only author, this page has been edited (albeit not substantively) by sundry individuals, and it is not for the creator of the page to determine exclusively and individually its proper disposition. The information on the page does not appear to be OR and does appear to be available elsewhere on the Internet, in view of which fact it doesn't seem at all appropriate to consider whether the author (or subject) of the page desires that the information should be on the Internet. Joe 23:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, clearly notable political activist. The rationale for deletion is clearly specious; the subject put personal information online last week in connection with an opinion piece for a Vancouver newspaper, including his picture. Not that this article needs all those pictures of him. Monicasdude 00:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am adding {{not verified}} -- cmh 01:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am adding the afd tag to that page... it should be on there, right? cmh 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - not sure how that happened. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Is this the same guy as here? If so, being on CNN certainly seems notable no matter how you slice it. The fact that he's now angry at his Wikipedia notoriety just adds entertainment to the mix. Any chance you could post some of those annoying/harrassing e-mails somewhere so we can all enjoy? ;) And hey, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - I welcome Mr. Sabet to come and fix whatever is troubling him here. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is going to be "Kept", may I suggest that an experienced editor goes through this to remove the 2 layers of POV, one clearly directed towards supportin gthe subject, the other towards denegrating him. -- 62.25.109.196 08:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best way to ensure that is done is to do it yourself. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not striving to present no points of view. Instead, it tries to present all points of view without undue weight on either. If you tackle this, it might be better to group contentious points into sections and present both sides of the debate. See WP:NPOV for more of these subtleties. -- cmh 17:01, 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: Speedily deleted both articles as vanity. - Mike Rosoft 11:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Protagonist and Rafael Antonio Corella[edit]

Two articles: nn bio and his nn internet username savidan(talk) (e@) 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable, not encyclopaedic, apparently vanity. --stephenw32768<talk> 23:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I tagged the article, but the speedy deletion notice was removed by the sole author. JRawle (Talk) 10:41, 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 Redirect → Pyroraptor. --Allen3 talk 16:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pyroraptor olympius[edit]

Redundant with article Pyroraptor, and Wikiproject Dinosaurs gives priority to genus-only titles. Dinoguy2 23:53, 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 --Allen3 talk 16:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nufayl ibn Abd al-Uzza[edit]

  • Delete, the article has had "context" and "clean up" tags on since September of last year but is still a one sentence pre-stub. The article violates WP:V as it has no sources and violates WP:N as the sole text of the article is "XXXX was XXXX's father". Looking up the name in search engines Google 355 hits, Yahoo 100 hits, and most of those hits are to mirrors of this page. Jersey Devil 23:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If the name is correct and a source exists (no geocities, weblogs, or similar) then insert the name into the article on Khattab ibn Nufayl. Green Giant 02:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of significance. Robin Johnson 11:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:16, 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 Speedy Delete. --JoanneB 16:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band:the tunguska event[edit]

Vanity page for non-notable band. Pugs Malone 23:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advert, no claim for notability, does not appear to be signed (probably just garage band). Average Earthman 00:14, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Unified School District 2006-2007 school year calendar[edit]

unencyclopedic schoolcruft – ugen64 23:58, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_23&oldid=1142647233"