Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this page doesn't serve a purpose anymore that Template:DOA and Template:DOA Character already does --Philo 12:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Character lists are common on Wikipedia (such as the List of characters from The Simpsons and List of characters from Family Guy), and the templates don't provide a description of each individual character.--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems that every character on this list already has an article, so it's less useful than some, but it still should be kept since it's nice to have an annotated overview of the characters without having to visit lots of pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are also lists for episodes and vechriles, how can this page be any different? -Dynamo_ace Talk
• Keep savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure fancruft. Brian G. Crawford 23:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Templates don't always substitute lists, neither do categories. It's much better to have "List of foo game characters" article than a) a gigantic template message and b) a separate article for each minor character ever. It can also serve as a good overview to a much larger set of Stuff. Also, these lists contain the fancruft to specific articles, and that's a good thing. If you've got to have fancruft, at least do it this way! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This belongs on the Dead or Alive page. It's ridiculous to have to click through to another screen just for the character list.213.208.117.47 23:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism, 3 Google hits. Prod tag removed by original contributor without comment or editing. Accurizer 00:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn neologism. --Hyperbole 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pointless neologism. Royboycrashfan 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sticktoitiveness is kinda-sorta-almost a real word, but this isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - horrible newspeak. --MacRusgail 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doubleplusbad quacknonsense. --Jay(Reply) 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean doubleplusungood kotepho 03:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleetitquicklyism is a principle that advocates deleting wikipedia articles that create neologisms or otherwise offend against the wiki-gods. Bucketsofg 01:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Neologism --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Rob from NY 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above reasons. --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wp not a dictionary.. slang guide.. idiom guide.. NOT this. kotepho 03:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:Ralph roberts removed AfD tag, and deleted this discussion.
• Delete I deleted this article as a non-notable neologism when it first appeared: {{db-repost}} could apply. Warning message for author left at the time.  (aeropagitica)  06:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. JIP | Talk 06:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Axl 09:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 10:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT Jdcooper 18:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Jon Calla 03:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is not encyclopedic, and is largely an advertisement. RPIRED 00:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --MacRusgail 00:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn vanity. --Mmx1 00:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. Brian G. Crawford 00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This entry is a portal to educational articles on:

• student centered approaches in Education Update
• Education resources in Boston and New York
• Harvard University Graduate School of Edcuation
• Yale University
• Bank Street College of Education

It is indistinguishable in content from many other educational program websites. Without it, a number of information cycles are broken. There is no inclusion of promotional language, no superlatives, and no external links beyond what is relevant. This organization was featured in the March issue of Boston Magazine, and should have a placeholder for user reference. SIgned -- User:deusyali

• Delete as non-notable, just like Keith Berman. Royboycrashfan 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Jay(Reply) 01:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unencyclopedic; non-notable; probable advertisement Bucketsofg 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and advertisement --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete whoa - this aint the guidance office. --Rob from NY 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all and especially Rob. This is a straight ad, and aren't we so nice as to have free servers hosting ads? --Deville (Talk) 02:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn, unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 10:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally unencyclopedic NN advertising. ProhibitOnions 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:35, 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 01:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable individual, largely self-aggrandizing. RPIRED 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a CV database or a place to promote one's business. Brian G. Crawford 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as A7 for unnotable. --Mmx1 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy A7, doesn't seem notable. Royboycrashfan 01:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete --MacRusgail 01:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Do not delete."" This site links non-profit organizations at Harvard University to educational programs (Crimson Summer Academy), and has implications for national research (Harvard CAC). Information is factual, nearly devoid of adjectives (the stuff of "self-aggrandizing"). Not notably different from profiles of American businesspeople, educators. Signed -- deusyali
• Delete not notable. Bucketsofg 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails per WP:BIO. Also, the person is only notable in an article being listed for deletion. --Jay(Reply) 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable; fails WP:BIO; 212 unique Google results [1]--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. Not a speedy in my opinion, as president of organization is a claim to notability; just not one that is likely to gain consensus. Editor "deusyali" is advised that the purpose of a WP biographical article is not to serve as a portal to non-profit orgs whether notable or not. If evidence of notability is shown for this individual, article will need cleanup of non-encyclopedic resume material. Lacking such evidence, the article need not be kept. Barno 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User is advised that deleting other editors' AfD comments and votes (which happened while I was editing my previous entry) is against WP policy and is more likely to hurt your case than to help it. Comment added (while deleting others) follows; note similarity to deusyali's words. Barno 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete:

Portal to two important non-profits:

• Crimson Summer Academy
• Harvard CAC

Language is factual, few adjectives. Very similar to boilerplate language in American businessmen category.

• Delete as per all, and just like the last nom. --Deville (Talk) 02:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are portals for this, and it's of very specific, local nature, rather than encyclopedic Evillan 04:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC) .[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all --Ugur Basak 21:35, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been merged into a new Memorable Daytona 500s section in the main article Daytona 500 Royalbroil 01:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, There are no other articles for other Daytona 500s, so why keep an article for one specific race? I brought anything relevant from this poorly edited article into the Daytona 500 article. Royalbroil 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reads like a fanboy summary of the event. Royboycrashfan 01:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: if the relevant information is already metioned, a branch off is unnecessary. --Jay(Reply) 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I personally cannot stand watching cars drive around in a giant left turn, but this is the biggest race in what is, by some measures, the most popular "sport" in the US. Individual Daytona 500s (and no other NASCAR races) should be included, just like individual Super Bowls, FA Cup Finals, World Cup Finals, World Series, Indy 500s, etc. If the article is in weak shape, it should be expanded and/or cleaned up. The information to expand this article is out there and is likely one OCD NASCAR fan/wikipedian away from being a proper article. youngamerican (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though expand and clean-up so that it can merit its own article --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• From the article: "Boom!" "He knew it was oveer for him." Nonetheless, Keep and expand per Youngamerican. While the Daytona 500 is not a championship final, it is clearly the most important and most noted event in its form of the sport. In the last two decades, it's become more notable by Wikipedia standards than the Indy 500, the Le Mans 24-hour race, or any Formula One event. Barno 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand per YA and Barno, but presumably we should edit Boom! The right rear tire blew up. out at some point --Deville (Talk) 02:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The fact that a tire suffered a blowout, costing Earnhardt (misspelled in the article) the race, was the most publicly discussed fact about the race, making it encyclopedic if the article is kept. "Boom!" and "blew up" are not encyclopedic, and need to be edited in the Daytona 500 article regardless of whether 1990's separate article is kept. Barno 03:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, keep the tire blowing up, lose the Boom --Deville (Talk) 05:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, if my opinion counts for anything.Baconpatroller 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect unless anyone saying expand actually expands it before the end of this vote. Average Earthman 04:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there should be articles for the individual years -- Astrokey44|talk 05:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the relevant info has already been merged to the main article space, why keep this? Eusebeus 06:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up further. Notable enough sporting event for mine. Capitalistroadster 07:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, notable event imo. --Terence Ong 10:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Daytona 500 should remain an overview, with specific articles for each race. If not, the main article will become an unwiedly and unpleasant mess, just like the global warming it contributes to. ;-) SoLando (Talk) 13:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw, hey now. The race cars' exhaust contributes far less to atmospheric change than the exhaust from the fans' cars getting there or the hot air blustered by Darrell Waltrip. Barno 19:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough. Monicasdude 14:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We can cover it in Daytona 500. Recury 15:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no consensus criteria for event notability, but surely this shouldn't meet it. -Jcbarr 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. The Daytona 500 is the most notable race for Nascar. Sue Anne 22:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per youngamerican. ClarkBHM 05:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. incog 23:03, 30 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 02:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NN M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Advertising/refereal spam. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam. Bige1977 01:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable website, advertisement. JIP | Talk 06:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 13:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, wish that we could speedy adverts. Kuzaar 15:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fives days of free advertising. Kuru ^talk 00:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Pretty popular via Alexa's ranking, but too spammy. --Shindig Me 19:52, 29 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 02:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable film, vanity. Sure it's on IMDB, but as the AfD for the article's creator (see here) said, this film is a textbook example of why existance of an IMDB entry alone doesn't establish notability. I agree. The IMDB takes submissions from anyone. Even the rating there are suspect, there is a large group of people sounding suspiciously alike who just can't wait for the DVD release - and all of them have only one entry; yup, you guess it, for this movie. Seems like IMDB has sockpuppets too. Ifnord 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable film created by non-notable crew. Royboycrashfan 01:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; non-notable movie; an IMDb profile does not make a movie notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Internet Movie Base data? Royboycrashfan 01:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, accidental typo --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete what is this crap. --Rob from NY 01:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, canonical red link farm in full effect. They had more filming locations than screening locations? Yikes. --Deville (Talk) 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. A budget of $7,000, and every single person involved is a red link. Oh, and the movie's website is begging for a distributor. That's a nice touch. Is every student filmmaker in the world trying to promote themselves through WP? Fan1967 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and the website also begs people to go to IMDB and vote for the movie, which presumably explains the glowing ratings. Fan1967 03:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the basis that the list of screenings indicates it is not on general release, plus concerns above. Just zis Guy you know? 10:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn film. Advertising??? --Terence Ong 13:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my original PROD: "Vanity page for film produced by creator of article. Some IMDb information, some Google hits, but nothing indicating widespread distribution, i.e., screened at one or two non-notable film festivals and no video availability. Your typical non-WP:ENC, dime-a-dozen indie film." --Kinu ^t/_c 05:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I live in South Jersey, an admitted film buff, less than 15 miles from some of the screenings, and I've never heard of this film. MusicMaker5376 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be an advert, along with Bamboo flooring M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertisement; fails WP:CORP --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article is an advertisement as it is. 46 unique hits, which goes to show this company is non-notable. Royboycrashfan 01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Bige1977 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this aint the business directory. See ya. --Rob from NY 01:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Just plain Bamboo flooring, however, may be a notable enough industry--the article at present is pretty lame, but could be improved. Sustainable materials are a growing segment of the construction market. Note also Bamboo floor which covers some of the same ground and has had its own layer of spam applied. I would merge and clean up Bamboo floor and Bamboo flooring, though I'm not sure which should be the main article. · rodii · 03:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cue the vikings. Just zis Guy you know? 10:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ad. --Terence Ong 13:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Four Winds Bamboo Flooring -- they're just a local installer in the Denver area. Merge Bamboo flooring to Bamboo floor. --Elkman - ^(talk) 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad --Ugur Basak 21:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ad. Haikupoet 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable corp and ad copy. Kuru ^talk 00:43, 29 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 02:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an un-noteworthy person, and is purely vanity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toryboy (talk • contribs)

Delete This article is not of any note whatsoever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toryboy (talk • contribs)

• Delete, non-notable. 238 unique hits on Google, first result is Wikipedia article. Royboycrashfan 01:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable; vanity; fails WP:BIO --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Rob from NY 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsuccessful political protestor.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, politicruft. They still have Thatcherites? --Deville (Talk) 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete minor activist with a fringe view. Even with the information in this article I stil lwouldn't know him from a hole in the ground. Just zis Guy you know? 11:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete probable vanity. ProhibitOnions 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all --Ugur Basak 21:37, 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 02:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a nickname that brings up zero Google hits. The article was originally prodded, but the notice was removed with no explanation or improvement. discospinster 01:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable term. Royboycrashfan 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Rob from NY 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Evillan 04:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC) .[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-article. Just zis Guy you know? 11:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and nn, definitely uncyclopedic in tone. --Terence Ong 14:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sounds like a nickname for a temporary base, or something. The article is just hard to read. --Elkman - ^(talk) 20:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:38, 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 02:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unknown in the diplomatic community Lesothoman2005 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no real notability asserted. Royboycrashfan 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, delete no name, he has done nothing special talent or contributed to the Canadian Government. User:Lesothoman2005 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reads as a fluff piece. --Rob from NY 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Only 140 unique Google results [3]. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete behind the scenes diplomat - impossible to tell what he has done.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lesothoman2005's request. --maclean25 02:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Ardenn 07:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who? Just zis Guy you know? 11:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under CSD 7: "Author requests deletion... provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Article history. A little past a day after creation, creator and to that point sole editor User:Lesothoman2005 blanked it and replaced the words, "Delete this article!" It was reverted presumably on the assumption it was vandalism. Nobody else has added anything to the article since. There are no inbound links. By the way, the subject has a strong chance to become notable as the new Canadian consul-general to Buffalo when border issues are especially pressing to both countries, but his article can wait. Samaritan 16:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:38, 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 closed. All articles to be re-submitted individually. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened, briefly, for splitting - all articles now re-submitted individually, as per suggestions. Grutness...wha? 08:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huuuuge batch nomination for a number of articles all purporting incorrectly to be items from Polynesian mythology. All seem to originate on the same (extremely dodgy) website, which has caused problems with Polynesian mythology articles in the past. None of these items seems to have much - if any - basis in real Polynesian folklore or myth. I'll leave User:Kahuroa to explain further - he's the one who suggested these for nomination (I'm largely just doing the donkey work of nomination). Grutness...wha? 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of them, per nom, I agree with the proposal for seperate nominations. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a waste of my time. --Rob from NY 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and re-nominate. I'm pretty uneasy about a block-delete this large. I'm sure that Kahuroa knows more about all this stuff than I do, but it is against my nature to accept this many deletions on someone's say-so. I think before we can delete an article we need a specific problem. In this case, I'd like something like 'Ahoeitu' is not in the Oxford Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology, etc. But that's something that has to be done one entry at a time. (Is there a wiki-policy about multiple deletions? If not, should there be?) Bucketsofg 02:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to you splitting it up into smaller batches if you wish, but I've just spent the last hour merging them all together into one, so I don't want to do that myself! All the articles do have the same failing, however (they are false), so a batch nomination seemed the logical way to go. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case don't get involved in the debate and vote at all. I sure wouldn't vote to delete in an area about which I knew nothing, but likewise I damn well better not be voting to keep in an area about which I know nothing. RGTraynor 19:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. The majority of these articles were added by user TUF-KAT over a day or two in late September 2002. He tells me that they derive from a dubious source - Encyclopedia Mythica. Some of these so-called gods are in fact the names of natural elements (like Ua, which means simply 'rain'. They often do not tell you which Polynesian culture the so-called god came from. There was no such thing as a unified 'Polynesian mythology' anyway - altho there were themes that were shared, each island, each tribe had its own tradition and its own stories and if the article does not tell you where the story came from it is meaningless. This causes confusion between the various cultures and languages - often the names in the story are obviously from different cultures yet they are presented as if they were a cohesive whole. Consider the article Kahomovailahi which purports to deal with a Samoan myth. This is impossible because there is no K or H in the Samoan language. Others purport to be Māori yet the names contain letters not found in that language. Kahuroa 02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Thanks for the clarification of your reasoning. On the other hand, if one googles 'Whatu', one finds lots of references to a Polynesian hail god. Maybe they're all based on that one bad website, or (as is often the case now) on Wikipedia's article. But if we need verifiability to keep articles, don't we also need it to delete them? Bucketsofg 02:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - they derive from the sources you suggest. Polynesian HAIL GOD??? How much hail do you think you get on a tropical atoll at the equator? Kahuroa 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Whatu is a Polynesian word for hail, no? And as a natural phenomenon it is not impossible to imagine a divinity associated with it. Bucketsofg 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the entry above for Ua, I think it explains what's going on with Whatu. Crypticfirefly 06:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, it does hail in Hawaii (though not often). In fact there was a hailstorm there this past weekend. Crypticfirefly 07:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, as nominated. Everything seems to be in order. In any case, bad information does more damage than lacking information. Brian G. Crawford 02:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But how do I know that it's bad information? I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't think I can give someone a blank cheque this large. Bucketsofg 02:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but it does seem to me that you're asking us to do the equivalent of proving the null hypothesis in scientific method. It's hardly likely that there will be any written or internet source which states outright "Kiwa was not the Maori goddess of shellfish". Grutness...wha? 02:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that's true. But, as I said earlier, there should be a standard reference work on Maori mythology that someone can look at and say that the standard reference work has no entry. Bucketsofg 03:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, on the topic of Kiwa, see the entry for Kiwa hirsuta. Someone at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute thinks Kiwa is the goddess of shellfish to the point that they'd name a newly-discovered animal after her. Good enough for me. Crypticfirefly 06:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: User Kahuroa may be able to point to a reference which states that Hinemoana is the Maori goddess of the sea and that her husband is Kiwa. See Hinemoana and Tangaroa. If "Kiwa" is a god rather than a goddess, it would be rather easy to fix the article. Crypticfirefly 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC) I would suggest that he or she drag out "A Concise Encyclopedia of Māori Myth and Legend" again, "Kiwa" is listed in that book, contrary to the statement below. Crypticfirefly 18:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all except those (if any) that provide at least one reference. I agree that the nomination should have been broken up into smaller batches. dbtfz^talk 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: These all appear to be substubs created with very little care, so I don't feel bad about deleting them en masse. If anyone truly cares about these, he or she can recreate them one by one with more attention to verifiability. dbtfz^talk 02:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A pertinent passage from WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. dbtfz^talk 02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep all unless individually nominated. There is no way to discuss this many articles in one batch nom. The failure to examine them destroys the integrity of the whole AfD process. If there was a problem, these should have been prodded. -- JJay 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • see my comments above. if you wish to split them up, feel free. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was aware of your comments above. Since I just tried to verify Tapairu and quickly found around 15 printed sources [4], I would instead recommend withdrawing this mass nomination. -- JJay 16:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge I randomly clicked five articles, and none have been expanded with any significance in the last six months. If they were worth merit as individual articles I believe more work would have been done. They could all be merged into one article, short of that delete as cleanup. TKE 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to merge because I don't know the language discussion mentioned, and I didn't see the creater was an admin. So merge until concensus. TKE 04:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since the creator of the articles is an admin (User:TUF-KAT) I'll assume good faith. There's something fishy about most of these articles, but I think it has more to do with poor research than an attempt at a hoax. Eivind^t@c 03:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of articles should probably be deleted, but it should be on a individual basis, not a mass-nom. Eivind^t@c 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • firther comment. No-one is accusing TUF-KAT of purpetrating a hoax. All that is being said is that he created the articles using a reference which has since been shown to be unreliable. It is the website that is to blame, not TUF-KAT. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've notified User:TUF-KAT about the mass nomination. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to notify a registered editor that you are bringing his/her article up for deletion. Everyone should be allowed a chance to defend an article. I think my voting delete above was a little hasty. It is a large nomination, so I think that the most prudent thing to do in this case would be to merge everything with Polynesian mythology, and let any interested party aggresively clean it up. I'd be willing to do the merges, if necessary. Brian G. Crawford 03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TUF-KAT should have known about this, since Kahuroa has approached him about these articles. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - see my talk page, TUF-KAT was ok with nominating. If we merge these with Polynesian Mythology, how do we avoid giving them credence they don't deserve? Kahuroa 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote at the moment. As noted, I wrote these (most of them? maybe all?) based on a source that is now proven to be unreliable, especially for some reason in the area of Polynesian mythology. (I used the same source for some bits in Celtic and other kinds of mythology, with no significant problems with errors that I know of) The source wasn't cited and is perhaps inherently dubious, but none of that was really considered very important in 2002. I guess I lean towards delete, but I won't vote that way without a source on Polynesian mythology that doesn't use these words at all. Tuf-Kat 03:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Tuf-Kat, I looked at their Celtic section, BS detector goes off all the time, particularly in the case of "Scotia" article. --MacRusgail 03:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If you go to Amazon, you can "look inside" various books. If you look at the index of Myths and Legends of the Polynesians by Johannes C. Andersen, some of the terms above seem confirmed: Atonga seems indeed to be a canoe-builder; Avaiki Tautau, a name for New Zealand; Bulotu, a Tongan paradise. Now, one or more of these may fail notability. But each should rise and fall on its own merits. Bucketsofg 03:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. Whatu, discussed above, is in the index as 'god of hailstorms' (p. 206); Uranga-o-Te-Ra is called fifth netherworld in Andersen, 'underworld' in WP entry. Bucketsofg 03:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson's book was written in 1928. Not considered a reliable source these days - but thanks, you might have discovered where they Encylopedia mythica got its dodgy info from.Kahuroa 03:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one way or another, I don't think that we should block delete all these articles. Bucketsofg 03:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have ‘A Concise Encyclopedia of Māori Myth and Legend’ by Margaret Orbell, Christchurch: Canterbury University Press, 1998. Orbell is a serious, respected researcher. None of these names appear. "Whatu' by the way is Maori for 'stone' - it could not appear with that spelling in any other Polynesian language, so how could it be a Polynesian god?Kahuroa 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to accept that for each of the entries that identifies itself as explicitly Maori. But, as you say, Polynesian cultures are pretty diverse, so should Bulotu (Tongan paradise) be deleted because it doesn't appear in a Maori reference work? (I'm asking this as an honest question.) Again, each entry has to rise and fall on its own merits. Bucketsofg 04:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point - but nor should something be called Polynesian when it can only possibly occur in one Polynesian culture - Anderson maybe generalised where today we would be specific - sounds like he labels as Polynesian anything that occurs in any culture within Polynesia. Tongan words aren't usually spelt with a B, so that should probably be Polutu anyway. I would doubt that there is a single work that covers all of Polynesia that one could turn to and say 'it's not here'.Kahuroa 04:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now - pending further investigation --MacRusgail 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These must be individually nominated. For example according to the New York Times article on the "Yeti Crab," (Kiwa hirsuta), Kiwa is a Polynesian goddess of crustaceans and the source of part of the name. Spot-checking others: Paliuli does mean "paradise" in Polynesian Hawaiian. Crypticfirefly 04:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. I found some excellent resources at The Hawaiian Electronic Library. Crypticfirefly 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: I disagree strongly with merging, these articles do not all share the same problems. Please see entries for Paliuli, Kiwa, and Kapuku-- not all are necessarily "false." Crypticfirefly 06:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Pua Tu Tahi is also verifiable. Are any of you actually reading any of these articles before saying "delete all" or "merge all"? Crypticfirefly 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge maybe they could all be merged to a list on Polynesian mythology, which is a fairly short article at the moment. -- Astrokey44|talk 05:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge these tiny articles into Polynesian mythology, and attempt to deal with their verifiability and/or expand them from there. --Hyperbole 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Hyperbole. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Its too large a batch to investigate properly. Merge them all into one, and then re-nominate. We can have a proper look thenafter. --Soumyasch 06:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why you shouldn't merge: too large a batch of too many different things. Each should be nominated and considered individually. Crypticfirefly 06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into one list. Unverifiable entries (or, more likely, incorerct or misleading ones) can be simply removed from the list. -Sean Curtin 06:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• We should be grateful to both Grutness and Kahuroa for bringing this matter to light. Whilst I agree that such a long list poses a dilemma, the fact is this is the kind of thing that gives WP a bad name, even as the effort by the nominators is itself (or should be) redemptive. The ones I looked into seem rife with inaccuracies (e.g. Paliuli referenced above). Bottom line: the nominator has identified a corpus of material whose source is highly dubious, a point which I think has been fairly made above and which gives this mass nomination credibility. He's done his homework, seems knowledgeable about the subject and raised a serious set of issues about articles that have all been authored by a single source. That's yoeman work dammit and we should refrain from whingeing about process and instead be happy that someone has taken the time. I'll vote to merge but would support delete as well. Eusebeus 07:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: what exactly have you identified that is "inaccurate" about the entry for Paliuli? In my opinion it is oversimplified, perhaps, but not "purporting incorrectly to be an item from Polynesian mythology" or "not having a basis in real Polynesian folklore or myth." Agreed, of course, that many of these should have been nominated and Kahuroa was right to bring up the issue. Crypticfirefly 08:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please accept that I have exactly NO knowledge on this subject. But digging around, I found in Kumulipo (subtitled a Hawaiian Creation Chant) [5] Paliuli is a she, according to Bastian's Die heilige Sage der Polynesier: Cosmogonie und Theogonie. The garden of Eden discussed in the article seems to be a conflation of the reference that Paliuli herself makes to an ever verdant land of the gods where abundant food grows without labor. - that's from Bastian I think.) Eusebeus 09:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have your Bastian source, but the linked creation chant has Paliuli as a place, not a person. I think you are being thrown off by the line: "Paliuli names an ever verdant land of the gods where abundant food grows without labor. The name is given to fertile spots in deep mountain valleys where in old days children of high chiefs were taken to be reared." It is an odd sentence construction. It doesn't mean someone named Paliuli gave a name to something, it means "Paluilui" is the name of something. If you keep reading, you get to the sentence, "Some say that each district had its Paliuli. Perhaps the name was given to whatever secluded spot was chosen in the district for the rearing of taboo chiefs from infancy without any form of labor on their own part." And then the translated chant itself: "A sea of coral like the green heights of Paliuli . . ."; and "the impenetrable land of Kuaihealani in Paliuli . . ." Crypticfirefly 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Also, refer to the references in the article itself, including the recent U. of Hawaii Press dictionary of Hawaiian place names. Crypticfirefly 14:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right - I confess my ignorance. I was also basing itthough on the stanza below, that reads : Born is a child to Po-wehiwehi, Cradled in the arms of Po-uliuli[?] which I read as a derivative.... But I really have no clue! Eusebeus 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that "Pouliuli" is a completely different word than "Paliuli." Hawaiian has only eighteen letters so there are many words that look similar. Crypticfirefly 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: per Dbtfz, clearly the burden of proof has not been met for these articles, they need to go. --Hetar 08:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Kahuroa seems to be the only expert on this issue, and voting to merge articles that are spurious and of dubious accuracy (in the opinion of the guy who knows the subject) is dangerous. If one or two of the above nominated articles are real, they can always subsequently be recreated with verification and a decent source. I think in this situation, the best thing to do is clear out all the rubbish, and start again. Proto||type 08:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow. I say Delete all for now, and if someone can provide a reliable source for the recreation of a specific one, they can. It seems very suspect that these articles were introduced 4 years ago and no one has expanded on any of them; if they were real, you'd think someone would have added something by now.--Cúchullain t c 09:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Crypticfirefly. If a spot-check on a few shows they're legitimate than a wholesale delete is inappropriate. Marskell 10:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as they might be a little disputed...--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as they appear to be unverifiable from reliable sources. WP:V is non-negotiable. Just zis Guy you know? 11:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please explain what you mean "unverifiable from reliable sources"? Picking a term at random, Tapairu, I immediately found roughly 15 printed sources that would seem to verify the article. [6]. -- JJay 15:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 14:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CrypticFirely. The articles should be judged individually, since there's clear evidence that some are either verifiable as they stand, or at least can be repaired. Monicasdude 14:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (again). The Dictionary of World Mythology lists 'Ilaheva as a Tongan worm goddess; presumably this means that Ilaheva can be kept. Bucketsofg 17:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into one large list, pending further investigation and expansion of these article into something that's actually worth reading. Ashibaka tock 17:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Polynesian mythology and let the cull begin by the experts. Alternatively, if that would bring down the quality of that article (which presumably bears more hits and is thus more important), maybe we could merge them all into one list, then contact some of the main stars of the Polynesian mythology article history to let them know it needs their attention? Jdcooper 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Further Comment. The Sava and I'i entries seem confirmed by (dependent on?) this book through google boooks Bucketsofg 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
• Most of these articles are too short to have any worth, and can be recreated if appropriate sources for them are found and cited. This probably seems like a backwards-ass suggestion, but can we just PROD them and see what gets improved enough to remove the tag in five days? Ziggurat 21:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We apparently don't have a single Polynesian mythology expert here at Wikipedia. If we prodded them they would just get deleted. If we keep them or move them into one list, eventually someone can take out a book from the library and do a run-through. Ashibaka tock 23:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AIUI "prod" can't be used if there's an even debate as to deletion or keeping, and shouldn't be used on anything that's been kept via afd. As to no experts, we have one - User:Kahuroa. And it was his idea that these should come here in the first place. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Most if not all of these are of questionable validity. However, from the discussion some of these appear to have verifiable sources. Perhaps the best process would be to put a prod notice on them all. Those which lack any verifiable evidence from reliable sources should be deleted. The editors who claim that there is evidence supporting some of these articles can add verifiable sources and remove the prod notice which may lead to these coming back here. They should not be merged into Polynesian mythology unless we have verifiable evidence that the relevant gods exist. Capitalistroadster 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. You can't prod something that has survived AFD. See WP:PROD#What this process is NOT for. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all without verifiable references by the close of the debate. Keep all with verifiable references. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've got a Polynesian Mythology book from the library and will start going through these. Aremata-Popoa and Aremata-Rorua can be kept, I think. (I've started editing it.) The suggestion to abandon the block deletion and PROD them all is the best idea. Bucketsofg 00:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as based on flawed verification, an unreliable source. Any of them can be still re-created if information based on reliable sources can be found. Gene Nygaard 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment Per WP:IAR with the goal of improving the encyclopedia I suggest removing the AfD tag from those articles that can be sourced per discussion above and allow the rest to be deleted. Listing all the articles as separate AfD's will take more time and effort and end up with the same result. Keep per rewrite and merge are terrible ideas given the acknowledged factual problems with some of these articles. Meticulously following the process should not result in leaving bad information here for all to see. Thatcher131 16:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the length and complexity of the above debate, I propose the following:

• to pull the batch nomination;
• to re-submit these items individually, over the course of the next few days.

Normally, withdrawal of a nomination would entail a wait of a considerable time before re-nomination, but in these circumstances I doubt that that is necessary. I'll wait a day or two in case there are any objections to this proposal (which should be lodged here). Grutness...wha? 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• agree. I've been working through some of these articles to see if they are worth saving. Quite a few of them should be simple deletions. There are some, however, that are salvageable. Bucketsofg 03:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Heartily agree. Though I think you might get away with small batches in some cases where the entries are of similar quality and are logically related. For example, Ngaru, Tumuitearetoka, and Tongatea all seem to be part of the same story. Crypticfirefly 03:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight 04:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• agree. The issues are complex in some cases - and require an in depth understanding of Polynesian language, culture, and history, as well as of the mechanics of the oral transmission of traditions. Which is why someone can say 'Avaiki-Tautau is a Polynesian name for New Zealand' without realising why that is impossible given the geography involved and the nature of the oral tradition. And I don't think this kind of mass deletion was the right way to go. My main aim is to guard against Wikipedia becoming another source of 'tradition feedback' where incorrect printed information ends up being incorporated in the traditions of the peoples involved - like the 'Great Fleet' hypothesis - made up by European researchers in the case of us New Zealand Polynesians. Kahuroa 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - I don't fault the nominator for trying the batch approach initially, but evidence has arisen in the discussion above to show that the articles need to be considered individually. Johntex\^talk 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - smaller batch. You might also want to put a fact tag on the articles. --MacRusgail 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree - merge is a terrible idea given that these articles are not merely stubs but have multiple levels of factual defects as well. The suggestion to prod the articles and allow thost that can be sourced to be rescued should also work in principle, however as there is no requirement that the "deprodding" editor actually improve the article, we'd just end up here anyway. Thatcher131 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since there seem to be very few objections to the proposal, I'm going to start re-afd'ing these individually, starting at the end of the alphabet, in batches of 10-12. I'm putting all of them up - that way any which appear borderline can hopefully get a bit of scrutiny before they're kept (it'll also make it less likely that I'll miss one in the crowd!) Grutness...wha? 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently all those from Tevake on have been resubmitted. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...everything from Paliuli on. Two more batches of 14 after that should finish it. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...everything from Kahomovailahi on. Grutness...wha? 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK done. Grutness...wha?

Please do not close this document until the last of the afd's have been re-done. That should occur within the next 48 hours. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK done, thanks. Grutness...wha?

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but it sure needs a lot of work. Mailer Diablo 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, vanity, fails WP:BIO, and possible hoax. Only 788 unique Google results [7], only some of which are relevant. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I haven't found the link through Google, but it looks like a copyvio to me. TKE 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If it were wikified, it'd be nothing but blue link name droping. I'm finding a lack of verifibility and notability without verification is shot. TKE 05:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here's the website for this person: http://www.scottmathews.com/ I have no idea if it's accurate or not. --Xyzzyplugh 03:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the same website, and a number of other mentions of this guy. If this is a hoax, someone has gone to a lot of trouble . . . Crypticfirefly 03:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure about website's accuracy, as it could be vanity. Could someone try to verify it? Doesn't seem to be any mention of Scott Mathews on the Beach boys page. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not so much vanity as perhaps stretching the importance of things a bit? I've done a ProQuest search and have found references in early 1990's issues of the San Francisco Chronicle and Downbeat to this guy being a studio musician (playing drums on an album for Keith Richards, for example) and being a record producer & songwriter with Ron Nagle. (Apparently a song they wrote together was recorded by The Tubes?) The March 21, 1993 issue of the Chronicle says he was one of the "busiest and most prolific musicians/producers in the Bay Area." For what that's worth. Crypticfirefly 04:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep If the Rolling Stone reference is accurate, then he seems vaguely notable. JoshuaZ 04:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Considering the tone, this seems like vanity. Royboycrashfan 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to creator, User:Tikitown, which is the name of the guy's studio, it seems. Just zis Guy you know? 11:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and userfy, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, hack and slash down to verifiable stub. Monicasdude 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaving allegations of hoax aside, Delete as non-notable vanity. RGTraynor 19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. And improve. --Shindig Me 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though it's in desperate need of cleanup. His Allmusic page makes him look pretty good, and this discography on Yahoo music comes back with credits on 126 different albums. -Colin Kimbrell 22:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verified. Stifle 22:53, 31 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 02:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non notable, vanity, bio Leppy 02:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Leppy 02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, published author, see WP:BIO Delete per Badgerpatrol --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• reluctant Keep relieved Delete per Badgerpatrol, below. The subject of this article clearly wrote both this article, and the one on his book. In addition, the reviews on his book on amazon.com all (in my opinion) look suspiciously enthusiastic. However, it seems that any published author is notable. Article should be cleaned up, though. --Xyzzyplugh 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Not a published author in any objective sense- his book appears to have been (self-) published by a vanity publisher ([8]). Asphyxiating prose. Look out for the amusing spelling mistakes on his website also. I also wonder how he managed to join the army aged 15, although I concede rules may have been different then. A vanity page and nonsense in a whole number of ways- delete.Badgerpatrol 02:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Constitutes a cautionary example that appearing on Amazon does not in itself mean that a subject is notable. Unfortunate and misleading that this sort of vanity material makes it on there. Badgerpatrol 02:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, "vanity published" does not mean published. --Deville (Talk) 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per bio, not an advertisor, nn. TKE 03:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment assuming this is deleted, The_Fortress_City should go as well. --Xyzzyplugh 03:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - that picture hurts my eyes. --Khoikhoi 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 06:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Badgerpatrol. Bucketsofg 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since AuthorHouse UK is a self-described self-publishing house. I also nominated The Fortress City. Creator has no edit history outside of this author and his book. Just zis Guy you know? 11:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vanity press books require very clear evidence of significance, and "a copy for a relative" motive only sharpens that need.
  --Jerzy•t 16:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  
• Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:40, 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 02:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source for this material is a personal webpage. All google hits link back to that article, or to ours. As "a guy in sweden with a webpage" is not a reliable source, Delete. Xyzzyplugh 02:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this related article, as it comes from the same source and the above applies here as well: Spruce_nubbe. --Xyzzyplugh 02:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. A Google search only yields 228 hits. nn. --BWD ^(talk) 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --MacRusgail 04:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Royboycrashfan 06:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Royboycrashfan. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, per nom Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as non-notable, Wikipedia is not a cookbook. --Terence Ong 14:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above --Ugur Basak 21:40, 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 Deleted by The Epopt with summary of (no disagreement with proposed deletion for over five days). -- JLaTondre 04:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by EivindFOyangen for PROD, it could become a good article if expanded; 45,100 Googles indicate some notability. I vote keep, but I'm bringing it to AFD after removing {{prod}} since two people wanted its deletion. King of Hearts ^talk 02:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete or merge with leet, agree with Eivind, List of Internet slang is a better article to merge into --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'm only getting 578 ghits, so merge with List of Internet slang. Eivind^t@c 02:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Internet slang or leet--Xyzzyplugh 02:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Eivind --Deville (Talk) 03:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by the way, in the unlikely event that people want to expand the article... this is just another way of spelling the word "woof". The term wasn't invented in 2000 as the article implies, I find useage of it as early as 1992 in a usenet search. This is just typical internet leetspeak, where o's in words are replaced with zeroes. Because, of course, that makes words more k3w1. --Xyzzyplugh 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As WP:NOT an idiom/slang/whatever guide List of Internet slang is quite horrible already. kotepho 03:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An alternate spelling of "woof" will never be a good article. This is the kind of thing that should have been quietly merged. It's really difficult to get slang definitions deleted on AfD, even if policy is ostensibly against dictionary definitions. Brian G. Crawford 03:39, 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 on WHEELS!!!...Opps, I mean, keep. :P Mailer Diablo 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an article about a WoW wiki. It's not important enough for a Wikipedia article and doesn't belong here. A Clown in the Dark 02:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WoWWiki is one of the biggest fansites for World of Warcraft. Many WoW articles on wikipedia reference it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CyberSkull; notable Wiki --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When I was still playing WoW I actually visited this site more often than Wikipedia itself. WoW has a huge fanbase and this Wiki managed to establish itself early enough that it became one of the definitive fan sites for the game. Which, incidentally, is the exact same thing I said when Template:Wowwiki came up for TfD (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 3#Template:Wowwiki). –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alexa ranking of 7,913. I know these aren't officially used, but this is a pretty good alexa ranking and indicates this is a popular website. --Xyzzyplugh 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This site has an alexa ranking of about 7,000. It's plenty notable. --BWD ^(talk) 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with WoW --MacRusgail 04:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't see why a Wiki wouldn't deserve an article. Royboycrashfan 06:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's already link from a prominent place in our WOW article, I'm not sure its own article really provides any significant information. --Hetar 09:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, all wikis are notable. --Terence Ong 14:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would just like to say that in this particular instance, how is this wiki any different from a common fansite? Really the only difference between this wiki and a fansite is the fact that it's a wiki. According to wikipedia policy, fansites should only be allowed if they actually had a change on the game. I think anyway, but i can't remember what page i got that from so i may be wrong. | A Clown in the Dark 22:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not all wikis are notable, but this is. Punkmorten 07:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep pschemp | talk 04:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 172 Google hits for "RUOK IVR", including Wikipedia and some mirrors. User who created the article has added external links from the same commerical web site to various related articles. It looks like RUOK was created as a hosting ground for those external links. Mrtea (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neologism change to Weak keep per the wub and Pgillman's comments --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. A google search for RUOK shows it seems to have been adopted by several police departments. Also an album [9] by Meat Beat Manifesto that appears to meet WP:MUSIC. the wub "?!" 12:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Author of Article) The arguments for deleting this article are flawed. "RUOK IVR" is not a legitimate search term for the program described in the article. (Probably less than 5% of organizations that refer to this service use IVR. Many communities provide this through volunteer service). Using the Google search term "RUOK Program" returns 34,000 hits and all of the results viewed in the first 5 pages are related to the exact program referred to in this article. And these are only a subset of the actual number, many of whom do not have websites or do not have information about their RUOK program on the web. These include police departments, fire departments, social services, private organizations, etc. Discussion regarding other external linking was noted on another talk session with Mrtea(talk). If links provided on this article (list of providers and private funding sources) are objectionable, offensive or inappropriate, then they can be removed without detracting from the substance and value of the article. At a minimum, the list of providers should be retained and perhaps included in the body of the article. This list of providers contains organizations that are categorized by state. Most of the police and fire departments consented to be listed with contact information on how individuals in their communities can subscribe to this nearly universally free service as well as testimonials about the individual lives that have been saved using the service.Pgillman(talk) pgaz 12:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per the wub. --BWD ^(talk) 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Royboycrashfan 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as a real organisation. JIP | Talk 06:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a (very, very rare) ad hoc exception to the rules on promotion in Wikipedia. Haikupoet 00:05, 29 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 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

listcruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. List about imaginary stuff. --BWD ^(talk) 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft and fancruft --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this one should have been {{prod}}ed, no encyclopedic value. Eivind^t@c 03:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bloocruft --Deville (Talk) 03:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ditto. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm a fan, but this level of detail is too much, IMHO Evillan 04:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC) .[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic listcruft. Royboycrashfan 06:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft, better suited to a fansite than to WP.  (aeropagitica)  06:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Axl 09:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Real delete imaginary content. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bloocruft and listcurft. --Terence Ong 14:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obvi. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - verifiable. Ah, I'm just kidding - Delete non-notable list-cruft. Johntex\^talk 07:00, 29 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 as making no claim to notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 12:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no documentation or context as to why this person is notable enough for an article Dlayiga 03:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete May be speedyable as there appears to be no claim to notability. Fan1967 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable person, fails WP:BIO --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom. --Soumyasch 03:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --MacRusgail 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no claim to notability. Royboycrashfan 06:14, 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. – Alphax ^τεχ 03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local politics website which appears closely connected to a highly biased, ongoing and virtually unkillable sockpuppet campaign relating to municipal political figures in Vaughan, Ontario (which is not a sufficiently large city that its local politics are clearly encyclopedia-worthy in and of themselves.) No evidence of genuine notability, and the article makes a subtle but unsuccessful attempt to couch an inflammatory statement about political corruption in just enough weasel words to make the statement seem more NPOV than it actually is. I think it's a delete, though feel free to prove me wrong if you disagree. Bearcat 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Expand So in other words you're saying the article is written with neutrality? Despite it being a controversial topic?

In the MOST recent edit to main Vaughan, Ontario page, you included Vaughan Watch under the external links as, and I quote, "Vaughan Watchdog website, unofficial". See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaughan%2C_Ontario&diff=45683657&oldid=45678795

If they are important enough to be on that page, and are notable enough to be referred to (and is in fact) the Watchdog of Vaughan Council, surely that is evidence of "genuine notability"?

They are the watchdogs of the most corrupt city council in Canada. That makes them worthy of an encyclopedia article. See http://vaughanwatch.ca/ Skycloud 03:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, no, I'm saying it's not written with neutrality — Wikipedia has no business describing any city council as "the most corrupt city council in Canada". The statement is neither neutral nor verifiable, and has no business being anywhere near a Wikipedia article, let alone in one. Bearcat 03:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Wikipedia is not describing it that way, I am. The page itself is pretty objective... as you've noted Bearcat. Skycloud 04:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • No, the page itself isn't objective, and I didn't say that it was — I said the page is written in a way as to give off an illusion of being more objective than it actually is. Meaning it isn't neutral; it just wants people to think it is. Bearcat 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - The key here is, no one outside the political circles in Vaughan knows, or cares about this organisation. I believe the fact that User:Skycloud (a sockpuppet) refers to Vaughan as "the most corrupt city council in canada", proves my point that this group is biased and contravening WP:NOT by continuously using Wiki as a soapbox. pm_shef 03:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn and nonsense --Deville (Talk) 03:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn and nonsense --Ardenn 03:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Vaughan Council has been noted as the most corrupt council in Canada by the Toronto Star and many other national publications. Vaughan Watch is the most often cited watchdog of Vaughan Council in the media, appearing in the Toronto Star between 5 and 10 times last year. See: http://www.yorkregion.com/yr/newscentre/vaughancitizen/story/2857035p-3308590c.html

• Delete, non-notable organization, website has no Alexa ranking [10] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Over 700 hits on google. Many newspapers article in national publication over a 3 or 4 year period. That's notable. Skycloud 04:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but only 134 unique Google results [11]. Also, what newspapers are you refering to? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For Clarification Vaughan Council notes in its minutes in January 2004 the following: "Communication – Paul DeBuono, President, Vaughan Watch, January 20, 2004, forwarding editorials from the Toronto Star and the York Region Newspaper Group regarding the investigation into tickets issued to Mayor Michael Di Biase;"

This refers to the police investigation into why Di Biase had several traffic tickets 'lost' by the police station. This is just one reference allusion to corruption. See http://www.police.york.on.ca/psb/agendas/2004/january/jan21public.pdf

• For Clarification Noted Toronto Star articles featuring Vaughan Watch and its President, Paul De Buono, found through google.

1. "Hand over Di Biase probe, York police told" Jan 16, 2004. Toronto Star. Description: ..."It's a general principle that a police force should not investigate itself," said Paul De Buono, a family-law attorney who started Vaughan Watch last year 2. "Police Clear Vaughan Officials" Toronto Star Story - 22-Nov-2004 by Phinjo Gombu and John Duncanson.

And why is any of this notable enough to be in an international encyclopedia? Items of purely local relevance do not belong here; this has already been clearly spelled out in both WP policy and AFD precedent. Bearcat 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • It has national significance, and that's enough for wikipedia. Skycloud 04:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it does not. Find me a reference in the Vancouver Sun. Find me a reference in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. Find me a reference in the Regina Leader-Post. That's national relevance, not coverage in what's for all intents and purposes the local daily. Bearcat 04:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --MacRusgail 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For further clarification Vaughan Watch and its founder Paul De Buono not have appeared in many national newspapers over 3 years, but are present news items as well. See "Rental Tribunal Adjudicator Resigns": www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb. php?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=001284

Above unsigned comment by User:Skycloud

• Delete per nom. —GrantNeufeld 05:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Bucketsofg 05:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Organization has been a catalyst for similiar organizations formed across Canada. Is the premier watchdog organization of the Province. VaughanWatch 00:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You have proof that it's the "premier watchdog organization" I'm assuming? pm_shef 00:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication that this organisation is notable outside its hometown. Capitalistroadster 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 07:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep :*I think Bearcat is a sockpuppet. 69.198.130.82 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, User:69.198.130.82 has made 6 edits, all on this page, or the talk pages of users involved in this discussion pm_shef 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what sockpuppet means? I'm an administrator and have been around Wikipedia for years. The word applies to me in no conceivable way whatsoever. Bearcat 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What's your point? You have probably made 20 times that many edits on this subject. Please note, that was not a personal attack. 69.198.130.82 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia AFDs are supposed to be a consensus of established users. New users who've never edited Wikipedia before suddenly showing up in an AFD with an agenda can be, and often are, excluded from the tally of opinion at the end of the process. Look up the phrase "gaming the system" if you don't understand why. Bearcat 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per nomination. Skeezix1000 12:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Just zis Guy you know? 12:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think you can tell from my posts that I am the same guy as a month ago. As for the sockpuppet comment, I was just joking with you. Lighten up a bit when you're dealing with this Vaughan stuff or else you'll go crazy. The ridiculousness will hopefully end in Novemeber for a few of Vaughan's councillors. And maybe the Mayor too. 69.198.130.82 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, if I'm in any danger of going crazy it's going to have a lot less to do with Vaughan politics and a lot more to do with certain Wikipedia editors who think their own personal view of Vaughan politics legitimates a six-week-long revert war protecting unencyclopedic trivia about lunches, biased POV edits and blatantly false accusations of vandalism against longstanding editors who are simply doing their job in keeping WP articles neutral and verifiable. Not that I'm naming any names. Bearcat 17:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional for non-notable, local political group. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 16:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Luigizanasi 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per skycloud. Leotardo 23:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --maclean25 01:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Vaughan Watch is a nationally-known organization is definitely incorrect. Peter Grey 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vaughan Watch and Paul DeBuono each get 2 Lexis/Nexis hits in the last two years related to the government of Vaughan. "Paul DeBuono" also pulls up some hits as a former Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal adjudicator involved in a tenant eviction dispute. Even if this is the same person, one person's crusade against an allegedly corrupt town government is not encyclopedic. Thatcher131 16:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat, Thatcher131. I'm thinking of two vaguely similar civic activist groups in Ontario communities which would absolutely merit Wikipedia articles: Citizens for Local Democracy in Toronto (defunct) and the Lanark Landowners Association in the Ottawa Valley (now the Ontario Landowners Association). How do they differ any from Vaughan Watch? Both of those had visible mass followings at regular meetings, organized large demonstrations, were led by or courted by prominent politicians, attracted persistent national media attention substantively discussing the organization, program and methods, etc. If Vaughan Watch has uncovered such corruption as claimed, I'm sure its time will come and an article can be recereated adding such history and sources. Samaritan 03:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vaughan Watch is certainly not nationally known. I doubt too many people out here in the east have even heard of Vaughan, let alone Vaughan Watch. Kirjtc2 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  06:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creator removed PROD tag with no discussion. Article about a website with no evidence of meeting WP:WEB or WP:V. --W.marsh 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable website, doesn't even have its own domain--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB. It's been around for nine years and it still doesn't have its own domain? That docks points on the website notability test. Royboycrashfan 06:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nine years without its own domain probably means that it has negative notabilitty. Just zis Guy you know? 12:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep pschemp | talk 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

advertising for a small cable channel business, fails to assert notability. Dismas|^(talk) 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I created the article and I'm in no way connected with the puppy channel, there is nothing left to advertise if it was advertising. It's important enclyopdeic information because it is the puppy channel, the first vision and attempt at execution of puppies(and very very small partial execution in terms of 3 channels playing it two hours a week) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 203.112.2.212 04:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable cable channel that failed years ago. Fan1967 04:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, checks out on Google. Anyone can get an hour on public access, but setting up a 24-hour channel in four markets takes some effort... and in this case, some very naive investors. Gazpacho 04:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see http://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/03/233.html for it's notablity 203.112.2.212 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep --MacRusgail 04:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup. --RPIRED 05:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if someone will rid this article of the POV advertising stench. Royboycrashfan 06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifiable cable channel. Although 203.112.2.212 gives the impression it's a cable channel about the execution of puppies, which would be awesome, and I would watch it all the time. Proto||type 08:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing too the first time I read it, lol --Hetar 08:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with what you say. When I put this up for deletion, the creator of the article vandalized my user page with the non-existant user box "user hatespuppies". Dismas|^(talk) 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Article should be renamed to The Puppy Channel if kept, per grammar, WP:MoS and sanity. Proto||type 11:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete uncited, largely unverifiable (which channels carried it?), no longer existent, no evidence it was influential (no spinoffs, no followup). As stated above, the execution idea has legs; a channel about puppies? Anyone watching it would surely lose the will to live almost immediately. Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The channel is an obvious inspiration for the Puppy_Bowl a major Animal Planet yearly event. 203.112.2.212 14:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 14:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but decide on correct capitalisation of name, and some tidy-up needed. Sure, it's not a major channel and isn't likely to be, but there are many far less notable things on Wikipedia. Fourohfour 15:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, oh and the "puppy executing" comment jumped out at me when I read it as well. I put it in BJAODN for posterity. I apologise if it sounds like I'm mocking the contributor's English; it's not really that bad, it's just one of those unfortunate uses of language.... most of which are made by native English speakers. See Colemanballs for some good examples. Fourohfour 15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep cable networks are notable, and the main reason to delete doesn't make sense--it can't be advertising if the network no longer exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Something that was only carried in four small markets, and then only briefly? Does this mean I get to write an article about the Boston community access cable channel, because at least half a million people could watch it if they chose? Delete the hell out of this puppy! RGTraynor 19:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this an all cable channels past and present. They are inherently notable. The nominator must hate puppies (lol). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just heard an ad on NPR for a program that's going to cover the Puppy Channel. A google search indicates that it's been covered by NPR before, too. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix grammar: Civilization needs this information because sooner or later someone will try to start a Puppy Channel. Peter Grey 06:53, 30 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. Enochlau 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN. http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Fayette+County+Productions%22 produces zero hits. Josh Parris 02:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Ezeu 03:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google isn't everything, but any notable indie film maker has a website or is at least mentioned on the web somewhere. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

advert for business that fails WP:CORP, PROD tag was removed ➥the Epopt 04:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertisement for a non-notable company. Only 267 unique Google results [12]--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. Alexa data for their website is not exactly impressive. Royboycrashfan 06:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn company. --Terence Ong 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 21:41, 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 15:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to list properly. Another user asserted this person was non-notable. MacRusgail 04:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Only 10 unique Google results [13]--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable web designer trying to up his Ghits profile - the inclusion of search terms in the article is a giveaway. The first Ghit returned is the WP page. {{db-bio}} candidate.  (aeropagitica)  06:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:VSCA. 10 is downright lame, especially when half of them are Wikipedia. Royboycrashfan 06:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity, VSCA. 10 google hits? Definitely nn. --Terence Ong 14:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy to User:Sl45. Stifle 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, minus the socks. If there is a consenus to merge and redirect, just go ahead and do so, no sysop action is required. Mailer Diablo 16:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable rubbish (though probably true), if keeping this non-notable language, please consider a redirect to David Morgan-Mar

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

• Chef programming language
• Whenever

MacRusgail 04:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to David Morgan-Mar (as I tried a few weeks ago.) David Morgan-Mar is probably just notable enough to warrant an article, but his languages are not (and Ook! just being very lame Brainfuck rip-off.) Even Esolang lists it as just a joke language. —Ruud 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. On second though I think DMM will not pass WP:BIO and that his languages are just not notable enough to be included. —Ruud 21:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom, does exist though not notable. Only 135 unique Google results [14] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was invented as a joke, but it was a good joke. I first learn about it from Wikipedia and it made my day. Everybody (mostly professional software developers) I showed this page liked it too. By the way its description as Turing-complete is correct. Also, article is well written. --Vlad1 05:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a good joke is not a sufficient criterion for getting an article (or I'd be off to write The Priest, the Minister and the Rabbi walk into a bar...). GRuban 17:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Additional comment. This is an article with long edit history and multiple contributors. Wikipedia contains several articles of this type, see for example COW_programming_language, but Ook_programming_language seems to be the most detailed one among them. The article does not contain any incorrect or unverified information, and it is a good and amusing read. To those who want to merge, may I suggest a principle: if it is not broken, do not fix it. You cannot merge it withDavid Morgan-Mar (which is a shorter article than this one) without either loss of information, or having the combined article look ugly. Confirming Keep vote --Vlad1 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm confused. If you wanted them to be merged into his article and redirected... why didn't you? kotepho 05:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I don't. I want them to be deleted, but not everyone would agree... --MacRusgail 06:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect but certainly not delete. I've heard of Ook! before but I don't think it is notable for its own article, but surely we can have them all in a lump. kotepho 05:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to David Morgan-Mar. Royboycrashfan 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect per nominator, or to esoteric programming language. There are languages of this kind and I don't see how Ook! is particularly notable among them. JIP | Talk 06:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep quite good and relevant if it's Turing complete. And Vlad1's comment shows it's relevant to programmers too. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruft. How many people are using this to write actual code? What academic sources have discussed the significance of this language? Whan new ground does it break? This is the programming equivalent of something made up in school one day. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to any suitable article. --Terence Ong 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since when are gags encyclopedic? RGTraynor 19:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Wikipedia is not paper. David Morgan-Mar's languages ought to be regarded as subpages of his page. So the question is: Would his page be too long if all content about his langagues was merged to his page. I feel the answer is yes. At any rate, this is clearly a matter for his article's talk page. Maybe merge all to Programming langauges of David Morgan-Mar? JeffBurdges 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and redirect to DM. It's just a trivial translation of Brainfuck. If that deserved an article, I could make a program to generate an infinite number of Wikipedia articles. GRuban 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although these are clearly "jokey" languages, each of them is, in some way, illuminating, and I can quite easily imagine these languages being discussed in a classroom environment. Ook shows in an amusing way that a Turing-complete language can be superficially very simple, Chef explicitly draws on a common teaching metaphor, and so on. I fully agree with Just zis Guy you know?'s point that people don't use these languages to write actual code, and that they don't break any new ground. These languages are useless for programming, but useful for the light they shine on their underlying concepts. If the general feeling is that these articles are merged into some larger whole, I wouldn't mind too much, but keeping them as separate pages isn't killing any extra trees, so for now I'm minded to vote Keep. WMMartin 20:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: please stop renominating articles just because you have failed to have them deleted or because you don't understand the contents: repeated nominations have been in the past seen as disruption. Furthermore, the point of an encyclopedia is not to look up stuff you already know about: the point is to discover stuff you didn't already know. It should therefore come as no surprise if the content of an article is unfamiliar or even looks stupid. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't know this bad joke had already been nominated. --MacRusgail 17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep if everything had to be deadpan serious, a lot fewer people would use Wikipedia. I wouldn't. (note, anon addition by 213.222.35.125: first edit)
• Keep: Because this is similar to other joke languages like Brainfuck or Malboge does not mean it should be deleted. It is still funny and we need fun. (note, anon addition by 195.6.25.114: first edit)
• Keep Even though it's not used for serious work, it's still a perfectly valid, Turing-complete programing language. (note, anon addition by 194.144.31.172: first edit)
• Keep As as demonstration of how pop culture infiltrates everything. (note, anon addition by Akaihyo)
• Keep: It doesn't violate any of the "grounds for speedy deletion" criteria; and if usefulness were a required feature of every article, Wikipedia would be a lot smaller! It's an actual language, it properly illustrates programming principles, and is also amusing to boot. I say Keep; the purpose of an encyclopedia is to gather knowledge, not to exclude it. (note, anon addition by Eringryffin: first edit)
• Merge and redirect per Ruud - program cruft. --ImpartialCelt 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ansud

• Hey, what happened to free encyclopedia ? As we know it's a storage of knowledge, but why that programming language (may be written for interest or like a parody) can't be stored in here ? It's just a knowledge like others articles. And if your children ask ypou @daddy, WTF is Ook language, you can't say "RTFM, darling."
• Notable enough for me (see the handy chart at User:R._Koot/Esoteric_programming_languages) and by a notable author. Keep all 3 languages. Failing that, merge to David Morgan-Mar's article or to a Programming langauges of David Morgan-Mar as JeffBurdges suggests. I will do it if that's the outcome, just userify the articles to me and let me know. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BALLS, I think. Stifle 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not everything that falls out of David's brain on a friday afternoon is notable. Give me some reliable external sources, and I may change my mind. - Hahnchen 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - how many times will you nominate the same article within a month? Ambarish 02:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Sure, it's a joke language, but it's an informative article, and it could be used to write programs (being equivalent to Brainfuck). No reason not to keep. Rwald 10:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Angelo 11:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't believe this is up for deletion! Speedy keep and expand! Misza13 ^{T C} 17:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it. I didn´t knew what was Ook! until I read it on Drupal. Those guys told the community that they wanted to migrate from php to Ook!

It is nice to know that when you are told about something, you can always read more about it here, at wikipedia. Ook! is a joke (I don´t care if it is a good one or a bad one), but it exists and that´s the important thing here. Why deleting it? Wikipedia is not (or shouldn´t be) a Judge, it is just an encyclopedia. If it exists, it should be here. Period.. Rosamunda - Buenos Aires - Argentina This is the user's only contribution to Wikipedia

• Extremely Strong Keep - I saw a reference to Ook! but did not know what it was, so i looked it up here. Yes, Ook! is a programmer’s joke. It is also part of our culture. This article is informative, well written, accurate, and referenced by other sites. Just because some may find it irrelevant, offensive, or fail to find it amusing doesn’t mean others won’t find value in it. The suggestion it be deleted is preposterous. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; it is not limited by the number of articles. There is no harm in having such entries and no reason to remove useful reference material; Wikipedia would be diminished by such a loss. We shouldn’t even be having this discussion! – T.O. Rainy Day 1 April 2006 user's 4th contribution

• Save the baby Ooks! - Yes, OF COURSE this is a joke language. So what? The Drupal page mentioned above lists code written in this language. That page links to this article. I got a chuckle out of the Drupal article and followed that link to learn more about the language. Isn't that what encyclopedias are for? If the article had been removed, I would have clicked on a dead link. How would that have made my day better? The next thing you know, we'll start deleting articles about comedians who tell bad jokes. Michael Geary 01:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Nominator makes no compelling argument for deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. --maru (talk) contribs 03:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. chocolateboy 03:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am aware of this discussion, but will not contribute, as I do not believe that I should participate in any such discussion on articles about me or my programming languages. -dmmaus 05:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely Strong Keep Any page that links to Terry Pratchett has worth.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinaxina (talk • contribs) and is the user's only contribution to Wikipedia

• Delete or merge with Brainfuck. Ook! is not a different language from Brainfuck. —Felix the Cassowary 06:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ook!. It is one of only a few joke programming languages that are widely enough known in the computer science community to deserve WP articles of their own.
  Note that the nominator of this article has also nominated Chef and Whenever for deletion, and has apparently merged the nominations with this one. This is wrong. Chef and Whenever are not widely known and would be good candidates for merging into David's article, while Ook! is notable and deserves its own. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to separate the nominations appropriately? — Haeleth Talk 13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely Strong Keep OoK! and Chef. I find all these esoteric languages interesting (especially Chef); They have a certain beauty. As someone said, if it's not broken, don't fix it. I don't know what would be gained from the deletion of both articles, and believe that they are to big to be in sections of their author's article. On the other hand, the article about Whenever is just a stub, and could be moved. FiP 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. This is not an inherently interesting programming language, because it's similar or identical to Brainfuck. A single paragraph in the author's article will suffice to explain the language.-gadfium 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely Strong Keep - So what if its similar? It is a programming language, albeit similar, but it's an excellent article, and I was just looking for it; thankfully I found it! Putting it under 'David Morgan-Mar' is nonsense, it would make his page hugely long and complicated. 05:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Offhand? Keep almost any article whose edit history is long and varied enough that it is obvious we have enough interested editors to keep the article accurate. This criterion is less contentious than "notability" and does almost the same job. DanielCristofani 07:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear Keep. A couple of minutes ago, I remembered having read about Ook! several years ago and checked to see if we have an article on it - which should serve to demnonstrate that even articles on joke languages can have some research value. Wikipedia is not paper, and we don't gain anything by deleting these articles (I could live with a merge and redirect, though - but outright deletion is out of the question). -- Ferkelparade π 10:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

insufficient importance CleanSweeper 04:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable with only 69 unique Google results [15], though I'm also fine with a redirect to Lego--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I doubt a specific model, let alone an unimportant one, would make a good redirect. Royboycrashfan 06:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. —This unsigned comment was added by 202.67.127.214 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 28 March 2006.
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an AFOL I can tell you that even amongst the Lego hobby community this is considered unimportant. TimGould
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 15:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One model alone does not constitiue enough content nor importance to have a full page. Maybe this can be included as a footnote somewhere else...?

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. non notable with only 90 Google hits WP 04:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as blatant advertising for non-notable product. Links to this article from other articles should be removed too. dbtfz^talk 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty of removing the spamlinks from other articles (except for Crocodile oil, which should also be deleted as part of the attempt to exploit Wikipedia as a medium for free advertising). dbtfz^talk 04:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep minor interest. --MacRusgail 04:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertisement for a non-notable product. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 05:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the same manner as Crocodile oil.  (aeropagitica)  06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, though there are only 26 unique hits and several hits on the first page are Wikipedia. Royboycrashfan 06:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. topynate 00:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. If there is a general consensus to redirect, go ahead and do so, no sysop action is required. Mailer Diablo 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable, fictional character who appeared on one episode of SBTB. Already listed on the minor characters page. Ckessler

This page is clearly more in-depth (it's obviously long enough to merit its own page behind a simple paragraph) to that particular episode (one of my personal favorites). It's not like I'm going to devote individual pages to every single minor-character listed.User:TMC1982

• Keep. Page seems to provide highly encyclopedic coverage of this character. No reason to degrade coverage of characters from this show. -- JJay 14:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your desire for in-depth coverage of the show, but this character appeared in one episode. A similar character page (Johnny Dakota) was just merged to Saved by the Bell Minor Characters. Ckessler 03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, one episode must have made an impression because someone did the article. Also see comments on Dakota nom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Dakota. -- JJay 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Somebody on Earth thinks this is important" is not a valid argument to retain. If it were, we wouldn't have AfD--Deville (Talk) 14:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither is "this character appeared in one episode" a valid reason to delete. If it were, we could delete Juliet for only appearing in one Shakespeare episode. My arguments for keep are given above. -- JJay 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really comparing Saved By the Bell to Romeo and Juliet? I'm sorry, but there's something slightly ridiculous about that. Ckessler 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If she only appeared to one episode, move to From Nurse to Worse and reframe to be about the episode. Keep if evidence is provided that she appeared in more. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments aside, JJay, the vote was still merge. Ckessler 04:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "The result of the debate was not a lot of consensus". No merge was carried out. And I voted keep. -- JJay 13:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This really is an episode synopsis. If individual episodes of TV shows are generally considered notable (I don't know the policy on that), I'd agree with CanadianCaesar and reframe it as an episode synopsis. Otherwise, delete.
• Redirect to Saved by the Bell Minor Characters. Royboycrashfan 06:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename and change into an article about the episode, not one character. I oppose a merge to Saved by the Bell Minor Characters as that involves lumping in a whole bunch of loosely related information together. --Rob 08:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect There's no need for an episode synopsis.--Cúchullain t c 09:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft. Just being broadcast on television doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. There are too many frivolous, entertainment-related articles on WP. Brian G. Crawford 15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Already mentioned in minor characters article and is an unlikely search term, so no need for a redirect. I would, however, favor a redirect over a keep for this article. youngamerican (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saved by the Bell Minor Characters. Do not merge the "List of possible cliches" as it is original research. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per above. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per above. SorryGuy 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]