Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 28 March 30 >

Purge server cache

March 29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (A7 and WP:SNOW). Physchim62 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

شهاب الدین حبیبی خوزانی

non english entry ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That in itself would not be a reason for immediate deletion. However, here is what the translation desk has to say. Kusma (討論) 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language of this article is unknown. -- Francs2000 13:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Arabic. Persian or Iranian perhaps? --SophiaEg 04:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is Arabic, I just don't know what dialect it is. (I studied a little bit of Arabic to recognize its characters, but not enough to recognize the words/dialect)
That is like recognising roman letters and deducing that the language is Latin. I think this is Farsi (the references to Iran are a bit of a giveaway. ColinFine 23:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is Perso-Arabic script, and it seems to be about a person named Šahâb Aldin Habibi Xozâni (or Xuzâni, I'm not entirely sure). The article is talking about how video game systems are emulated. It's not notable, delete it. Kirbytime 01:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's advertisement. Look at the Userpage and Usertalk of the person who wrote it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dimcomputer Kirbytime 01:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed it for deletion as {{prod|advertisement}}. Kusma (討論) 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...but the prod was removed. Can somebody who reads Perso-Arabic please nominate this at AfD? Kusma (討論) 21:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy G7 by User:Starblind. Royboycrashfan 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Schmidt

I originally {{prod}}ded this page, but the creator objected without reason. Google search for "Christian Schmidt" "Molecular Cancer" brings up 46 unique hits; when searching for one alone, the results given make it difficult to justify a conclusion. Implies notability, though I doubt many people have heard of him. I have to say delete. Royboycrashfan 00:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What justification do you need in order to change your mind ? In other words, how 'well known' should a person be in order to be included in Wikipedia?--Schmidt102 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, extensive publication record, journal editor, signficant Google Scholar presence. Notable subject, neutrally written article. Content is more important than authorship, and vanity alone isn't grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I looked it up and agree with you. Go ahead and delete the page as soon as possible. --Schmidt102 01:27, 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. I think it's fair to close this as "delete", as there are considerably more delete votes than keep votes, and most of the keep votes are from users with very few contributions. JIP | Talk 07:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah and Azuu

  ATTENTION!

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

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

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

A webcomic hosted on DrunkDuck, a free webcomic host which is described in its own article as "a small community", it has an Alexa rank over 100,000. And note, that this webcomic is just one of many on that 100,000+ ranked site. Is this comic notable? A look on Google for "Elijah and Azuu" brings up 125 hits, and looking through the first 70 or so links, not a single one of them was a review or critical commentary from a semi-respected source. - Hahnchen 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete, another non-notable webcomic. Royboycrashfan 01:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as above RobLinwood 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As two above Leidiot 02:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RoyBoy ConDemTalk 03:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable webcomic --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 10:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely non-notable. --Jay(Reply) 23:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Ugur Basak 23:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I reading the Google hits thing wrong? Because the description above says it only has 125 hits, but when I click it I see 1,540.
    • For some reason, when I click on it now, the amount of links is reduced to under 80. I'm counting the amount of "unique hits", you can find out the unique hits by clicking through the google pages until the end. The reason I count unique hits only is because for webcomics, literally thousands of hits are all from one site like buzzcomic. And I had a look at your additions to the article too, they're pretty informative additions too, but I just don't think that singular drunkduck comics do not have that large a following. - Hahnchen 15:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, is it really fair to judge a comics viability based on its choice of hosting service? I really think that the comic should be looked at as a seperate entity from Drunk Duck.
  • Do Not Delete: I definitely believe that this comic falls under the "noteable" category, as it is the top-read comic on DrunkDuck, and it was nominated for several prestigious awards at BuzzComix, but has since opted not to compete for awards. This does not change the fact that it was obviously of a high enough quality that it was nominated in the first place. Experimentmonty
  • Do Not Delete. I second the above reasoning.
  • Keep High quality, several award nominations and a large fanbase. Seems with articles about obscure pkanets in star wars books have articles this deservs to stay--Seth Turner 05:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above --85.12.80.1 07:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1,620 hits on Google. The wiki page is second.
  • Do Not Delete. This comic has been around for a while, and was once in the top 10 on webcomicslist.com (which is now defunct).
  • Delete - 1,620 hits is not notable by my standards -sorry. --Khoikhoi 19:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep E&A is the webcomic that got me hooked on webcomics. I have yet to see another that can really compare. The hosting's only part in the comics standings is that because the hosting was crap for so long, the comic lost a fair bit of its following. We're coming back, but you can't judge its validity or lack thereof so soon after such a major crash. This comic has been around for years, is well produced, is near a thousand strips, and has a major loyal following. If webcomics list were up I have no doubt it would be in the top ten. This sounds like a cornerstone of the webcomic industry to me, not a negligible side note. Do not delete this, please.
  • Delete, arguments for notability not convincing. Sandstein 19:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do guest comics done by the author have any impact on notoriety? Because there have been at least guest comics for RPG World and Alien Loves Predator
  • Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 01:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You ever seen a drunk duck? Sorry sight. T K E 04:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now now, there's no need to attack Drunk Duck; I've seen a lot of very quality work come from there. They provide a helpful service and don't ask for anything in return. Anyway, although E&A is an important comic to me, I have to admit that it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seaterra

Looks like an advertisement Indiana Fats 01:12, 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. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Girls Historical Preservation Society

I have no idea what this is supposed to be. Does note establish notabilty or even wether this organization actually exists. Google has never heard about it. Mstroeck 01:13, 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 keep `'mikka (t) 18:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey C. Wynn

No real significance. It seems like a person's resume. Red dwarf 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shhh. Don't tempt the bobblemakers Kuru talk 04:12, 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. The number of new voters here is so high that I cannot count them. Arguments presented regarding notability revolve around the Alexa rank which is below 3 million. If people are interested in a wiki for webcomics, I suggest you go to Comixpedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to Make a Sprite Comic in Eight Easy Bits

A webcomic, which can be found here on a website with no Alexa rank. Is this website notable? I tried various Google searches, "Eight Easy Bits" brings back 40 hits and so does "8 Easy Bits". Is this website notable? Is it influential in the webcomic world? Signs say it isn't. - Hahnchen 01:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete For the obvious reasons, delete, but weak only because it's a very well-written article. I don't quite understand CyclePat's transwiki proposal... this isn't a how-to, but a sprite comic. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep 11,100 hits for "8 easy bits" [1] and seems to have a following of sorts plus positive reviews. Reasonably good article. ProhibitOnions 09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this Alexa rate only numbers? Since when is pure traffic important when it comes o determining things like artistic merit? --R. Wolff 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly. This is not cruft, it's a concise, encyclopædic article about a meritorious work. I, for one, have visited the article independently before it came up for deletion. Leave it alone. There's real cruft and real advertising on wikipedia. Lebob
You may wish to review this policy, and this guideline, which indicate that your ideas of what a wiki is for do not necessarily apply to this wiki. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, and I'll keep that in mind. Vote changed from "Keep" to "Week Keep". I still believe it has some merits. --SirAPKered 12:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As others have said, this clearly does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for website notability. RaelImperialAerosolKid 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC) I changed my mind. Weak Keep. As others have said, this does seem to be fairly unique and somewhat popular in the webcomics community. When you factor in its longevity, I think that gives it enough notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, but only just. RaelImperialAerosolKid 18:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: It's been around since 2003 (ancient history in terms of a webcomic) and I 4,700+ google hits even ignoring the wikipedia and buzzcomics entries. Stev0 23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you take a look at "eight easy bits" on Google now, it only gives back 45 unique hits and about 300 in total. The reason for the high amount of links beforehand was because Google was indexing roughly 3000 links for a forum user with "eight easy bits" in his signiture. I do disagree with the synopsis that being launched in 2003 makes for a long running webcomic, it has only managed 97 strips and if you look at List of webcomics, you'll find many more webcomics which have lasted much longer. - Hahnchen 22:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Eight Easy Bits comics tend to be at least three to four times as long as typical webcomics, and have exceeded seventy panels on a single page. Not to mention that it's a very sprite-intensive comic, with sprites and graphics extracted from many different NES games. You can't dismiss it out of hand based on the "97 strips" criterion. Lebob
  • keep For reasons listed above. it is notable enough, and Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia. Wutasumi (talk · contribs) 05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The Wikipedia policy says nothing about notability. It merely states that it isn't a dumping ground for random information, and with the organization and content in the article, it isn't random information. 07:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the comic is often linked by other webcomic authors, and thus seems to be somewhat notable, at least in the webcomic community. "Notability" is such a fuzzy criteria anyway, and there's little to no mention of it in Wikipedia policies. This does not seem to be a vanity or advertising page, and that's the closest thing on WP:NOT to a "notability" requirement that I can find. --HBK|Talk 16:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nifboy 23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-webcomic. Stifle 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to the fact that Hannchann's own links link to 916 and 11,600 sites respectively, I find the statement to have little merit. It is linked to by VG cats, whose author is himself quite notable, giving it plenty of merit in the webcomic world. Beyond that, several of the comics written are four or five pages long, giving the sparse updates a good reason. --Funk Masta K 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While I personally don't hold any strong like or dislike of this webcomic, and I'm sure that my opinion isn't as valid or accepted as some more established members, it seems that it has some notable points. The comic is linked by VGCats, it has been online for something like three years. It's fans seemed to believe that it was worthy of an entry, which show's that people feel strongly about the influence of the comic. The entry seemed somewhat well written and I don't actually see any reason for the entry to be deleted, though I don't see much of a reason for it to remain either. -- Moggy 05:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User's first edit. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the "ATTENTION" template clearly states: "You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines." So how is it important whether it's someone's first or only contribution? The arguments are still the same. --R. Wolff 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/New Proposal: I nominate User:Hahnchen for banning from the articles for deletion category by method one in section two outlined under Wikipedia:Banning_policy. I believe that he should be allowed to continue to contribute to other areas of the project, but he has shown vast amounts of immaturity in regards to deletion in his defense, nomination, and support of deletion of articles. Additionally, he appears to nurse a vendetta of some sort against webcomics in general, and has been problematic enough to incite multiple users to vandalize his page with such things as putting a request for deletion* on his user page, or stating that the only thing in his vocabulary was "please delete". 64.72.87.113 13:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One which did not follow the guidelines outlined by Wikipedia, but this seems to show that it was meant as a sarcastic attack against the user rather than an actual request for deletion.
    • Considering the number of delete votes above, I would say these nominations have merit. Please don't engage in personal attacks. Thank you. Fagstein 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As stated by User:Hahnchen, the domain name has expired, it is apparent by navigating the site that this is not an April Fool's Joke. If the domain name remains expired, the terms of this entry deletion might be different. (Ex - Votes to keep to preserve the history of the comic.) Perhaps it would be best to make sure if the domain will be renewed before continuing with the discussion of deleting this entry. Maybe someone could contact the author of the webcomic to get some insight on this? -- Moggy 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It does have a proper citation. "How to Make a Sprite Comic in Eight Easy Bits" is the entire name of the webcomic. How else would you put it? And why doesn't it belong here? It's not advertising, as the author of the comic was unaware of its creation until someone pointed it out to him (or so he claims), and it's well written. A bit more professionalism would be good, but other than that, it's quite descriptive and is up to date. Besides, plenty of comics, especially webcomics, don't become famous from the get-go. It's a well written comic, one that lies under the shadow of its crude presentation (the website, which is just the comic, is pretty ugly). I'd be willing to bet that if the site were to get a complete makeover, it'd receive a lot more traffic.206.248.72.52 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Ipsum[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Bondi

Seems minor and non-notable. --maru (talk) contribs 01:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She's more famous than Flavia Colgan, who has a Wikipedia article, easily survived a vote for deletion, and has essentially the same job: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flavia Colgan

Pam Bondi also has an IMDb entry, which I doubt most other prosecutors do. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1980834/ Then we add that she was offered her own reality TV show. And if you think she needs to be connected to a major case, she was the prosecutor in Dwight Gooden's case; Gooden is a famous baseball player. Beisnj 02:22, 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 05:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dee philosophy

Non-notable philosophy. Was originally proded as a hoax, but was deprodded by the article's creator. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:39, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thakathi

Article about a word in an unidentified language (Google seems to suggest that it may be in the Zulu language); questionable for English Wikipedia. Mareklug talk 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete not an encyclopedic article.--MONGO 04:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've swayed a nominator! I've redirected the page to Tagati as I proposed - I'll try to expand it over the next couple of days. Humansdorpie 17:24, 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 speedy delete by MONGO. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Theta Chi

Delete: A local sorrority with only 26 members, very non-notable. The article states they have "NUMBER alumnae across the United States." --Hetar 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not tagged for Afd because it's empty, its tagged because its a non-notable organization - and its notability isn't going to change any time soon. --Hetar 04:56, 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 05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tete du boeuf

Nominated for {{prod}} twice by two different users, both times reverted by JJay, who is unlikely to change the state of this article in any way shape or form, and i'm getting tired of it. Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [02:00] <freakofnurxture|talk>

  • I hadn't thought of insults, but that could work: "Boy, you're really acting like a tete du boeuf." I thought of a few other possibilities, like: "Man, I had 10 margaritas last night and this morning I really have a tete du boeuf." Any number of things it could be used for. Fan1967 16:43, 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 speedied. — Mar. 29, '06 [03:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Zaraza (hacker)

non-notable, and probably vanity. A quick WHOIS shows that the anonymous editor that created the page comes from the same town as the hacker himself, alluding to vanity. Delete, and possibly speedy. Firestorm 02:19, 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 05:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew (Matt) William Cooke

Non-notable. See [3] [4] [5] and [6].


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan J. Brothers

Does not meet the WP:PROFTEST criteria. The author (Hjb) is clearly the subject himself. Is this a vanity page? Ogdred 02:19, 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 05:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vespa

Non-notable software that is stated to cause 'whiplash' and 'death'. Speedy delete pulled twice without explanation. Delete. DMG413 02:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.221.19 (talk • contribs)

wow, pride is a sin, you guys aren't Brittanica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabud (talk • contribs)

Personal attacks against no one in particular aren't very effective, now are they? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't seen the commercials? Farce? I think not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.221.19 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad D. Alagaban, Jr.

Delete - fails notability in my view, but cannot be speedied as article asserts notability in political activism exolon 02:42, 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, as 70% of all votes are for deletion, and POV forks are against Wikipedia policy. JIP | Talk 07:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russsian claims about Warsaw Uprising 1794

This article is just a copy and paste of the Warsaw Uprising (1794) article. User:Molobo disliked its sourced expansion and tried to blank it. When blanking was reverted he pasted the entire content into the new title creating a duplicate article Irpen 02:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion as Halibutt has taken to correcting the article from info coming from Tsarist propaganda book.--Molobo 08:26, 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 — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Roberg

Not notable per WP:BIO. --Wolf530 02:50, 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 move, but the deletion during the debate now requires a history merge. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inforwars.com

There, I created Infowars.com with the same information... someone should feel free to delete this article now... --Hyperbole 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I opose delete, JD, the guy creating this AFD is infamous for afding everything i creat. They even rather afd and make a POINT rather than just move it in good faith. Dont give in to them, dont delete this, just move it. --Striver 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Errmm... moving is done by creating and deleting, no? I created an identical article at Infowars.com (where all further improvements should be made) - now, the second half of the move is deleting the remaining article at Inforwars.com. This really is non-controversial and everyone agrees on it. --Hyperbole 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admins can make a move. I hate giving JD the satisfaction of having the article deleted when he simply could have moved it and not made a fuss about it.--Striver 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, never mind, im the one maknig the fuss now... Just redirect it :)--Striver 04:49, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berger

not notable, possible vanity page A2Kafir 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not notable for being on CNN, he is notable as a member of the 9/11 truth movement, and being on CNN is a proof of that, not the other way around. --Striver 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Circular reasoning. A2Kafir 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Circular reasoning = A => b => A. That is not what im saying. Im sayin Notable => CNN, not CNN => notable. Get me? --Striver 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Googling "Michael Berger" brings up a voice actor, an artist, a karate trainer, and a physics professor by that name on the first page, but no mention of this particular Michael Berger. He really doesn't seem to be notable outside his role in the Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews, and even in that context, his importance is questionable. I don't even see any evidence that he's even a notable member of the 9/11 truth movement. --Hyperbole 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try [7]--Striver 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, again, he is not notable for being in the television, he is notable for being the Media Coordinator of 911Truth.org, and that is so notable that CNN choose him for the job of representing the 9/11 movement. Does it get more notable than that? --Striver 06:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...so notable that CNN choose him for the job of representing the 9/11 movement.. In other words, he's notable precisely because he's a media representative, i.e., being on television, not because he's on television. Right, got it. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, you are saying he was a nobody before the CNN thingy. And that is not the case. He was and is one of the prominent figures for one of the most prominent parts of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It was due to that he was invited to CNN. He was prominent and notable in the movement before that, and not the other way around--Striver 07:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, you are saying he was a nobody before the CNN thingy. Got it in one. And all your handwaving about how prominent he is inside your walled garden doesn't change that. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one interview on an entertainment news magazine != notability. Striver has conveniently neglected to mention that Showbiz Tonight airs on Headline News, not CNN. It's an important distinction, and I don't doubt that this is an intentional distortion. Striver is the same user who billed Morgan Reynolds as George W. Bush's chief economist, when he was actually the Department of Labor's chief economist. Rhobite 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will you quite assuming bad faith?! I take offence in your accusations!--Striver 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: don't assume bad faith. I see absolutely no reason to assume that the HN/CNN mixup was anything but an innocent error, and every reason not to. --Hyperbole 07:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not after the Morgan Reynolds thing. Striver is either being willfully deceptive, or he lacks the attention to detail required of an encyclopedia editor. Rhobite 15:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, here is another radio interview with him:

29/3, CJBK--London, Ontario--10am Eastern. Listen Here: http://911truth.org/911truthmedia/Audio/CJBK%201290AM%20Talk%203-29-06.mp3

His been in Showbiz Tonight, and has been interviewed by CJBK, both times as a representative of the 9/11 truth movement, he is the media coordiantor of one of the bigest 9/11 movement groups, and you call him non-notable? C'mon, he is far more notable than a whole bunch of the guys in wikipedia and easly fullfills WP:BIO:

  • Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage
  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
  • Name recognition
  • Google Test , michael berger "9/11" 557 hits
  • audience of 5 000

Its simply wrong to delete him. --Striver 22:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you quote his name, it's only 557 hits [8] Reply: Yeah, sorry, i just saw that you commented before i corrected it. --Striver 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the "5000" is a guideline, not a rule. I've been quoted in several papers with a daily publication of several million; I get a few hundred ghits (and I have a non-common name), and I've been quoted on Fox News. I'm just a dopey college student and I don't rate a wiki article. Getting quoted in a paper is not alone a sign of notability, regardless of how popular the paper is. Hell, they quote the neighbors in the New York Times when a building burns down. Are they notable now? --Mmx1 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not debating your notability, and further, he has not been simly quoted, he has been called as a representative of a nation wide movement, and also given time to talk long about his issues on both TV and Radio! His notability is being the media coordinator of a nationwide movement, deleting him is a blatant violatioin of the spirit of wikipeda. --Striver 22:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's the media coordinator for a website the purports to front for the entire "9-11 Truth Movement" I'm using myself as an example why his credentials aren't that impressive. I know I'm not notable, yet in my uninteresting undergraduate career I'm still managed to pretty much match his media credentials. And I'm not even trying to pass myself as the rep for some movement. I'm sure I could get an hour on Art Bell with that claim.--Mmx1 22:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You dont need to have any education to begin with in order to have notability. Have you been invited to talk on both national tv and local radio? If you have, then you are also notable according to WP:BIO, SPECIALY if you are the "media coordinator for a website the purports to front for the entire "9-11 Truth Movement"! Again, have you been called to talk in both radio and national TV? Do you have a large number of people you represent? Are you the media coordinator of the prominent website of a group? Are you working on a movie that is being relesed 9/4/06? Bereger has all of this, and you are deleteting him as nn?--Striver 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is he less notable than: P. J. Abbott, Achille Valenciennes, Adélaïde Dufrénoy, Adrien René Franchet or Bernard Picinbono ?--Striver 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have something against the French ;-) And yes, I was quoted on Fox News because I couldn't get an interview taped before the story broke. That's a bit more significant than Showbiz tonight. He does NOT represent the movement, he only claims to. Who represents the Anti-War movement? Lots of people claim they do but I doubt you'll find consensus.--Mmx1 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you was only quoted, maybe posibly taped, but where you there live? And it does not matter if he is truuly the representative of them, he was there as the representeative of the 9/11 movement. Further, i challenge you to find one single 9/11 movement activist rejecting him as a notable and prominent representative of the movement. angain, he was not quoted or taped, he was there live on both the tv and now, yesturday, on local radio, and he is working on a movie that will break in 10 days. --Striver 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you was only quoted, maybe posibly taped, but where you there live? Clearly, the really important question to ask is exactly how many angels dancing on the head of a pin makes the pin notable. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont know if it maters, but he also has "his own plastic recycling company and movie production company": end of tape--Striver 23:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Michael Berger: [9], deleting him is just wrong! --Striver 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, anyone can start a blog in 30 seconds. You're beginning to sound like Sollog. A2Kafir 00:55, 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. JIP | Talk 07:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield: Apocalypse

This could be considered cruft, the mod is unreleased and the article isn't wikified.--Zxcvbnm 03:24, 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 17:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasteland 2042

Cruft--Zxcvbnm 03:31, 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 keep. Sockpuppets not included. Mailer Diablo 12:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G10 (Canadian universities)

Unverified, and non-notable. I've never seen this used in relation to these Universities. Delete Ardenn 03:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I understand the Assume Good Faith rule, one does need to wonder why this user has been attacking everything to do with McGill. The Redmen, the G10, the Old Four, etc. pm_shef 19:13, 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 per CSD A7. the wub "?!" 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hamm(musician)

Google disproves notability when cross-searching with "Hellboy" [11] or "Hell Boy" [12] - both frequently mentioned in article.

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

}

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by MONGO as patent nonsense. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamworth jesifesto

Delete. Seems like just a bunch of made up nonsense. CharacterZero 04:09, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Heymann

An associate professor of architecture who fails WP:PROF. Only possible bit of fame is designing a house for George Bush. Seems to be part of a "Get as Many UTexas People in Wikipedia as You Can" campaign. Calton | Talk 04:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - subject is a notable architect who has designed the house at Prairie Chapel Ranch for the current President of the United States. Article was just created today as a stub and has not had much time for expansion. I'm not sure what the nominator has against people who attended a certain university. Johntex\talk 04:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have something against alumni of any university blindly using Wikipedia to promote their alma mater. Was that clear enough, or are you going to twist those words, too?
    • And as for his big commission: it's a HOUSE: not Fallingwater, not Dumbarton Oaks, not Monticello, just a McMansion for the President. You misuse the word "notable". --Calton | Talk 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you implying that I am blindly creating articles? If so then you are mistaken. His name was redlinked in another article, he seemed notable to me, so I made a stub. You are free to disagree with me about whether he is notable or not, but I think you are violating WP:CIVIL by accusing me of having anything other than the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Johntex\talk 04:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...but I think you are violating WP:CIVIL As opposed to your extremely civil and fact-free accusation that I hate UTexas people. Uh huh. Consistency not a virtue in Texas?
        • Maybe "blindly" was a poor choice of words. Promiscuously? Thoughtlessly? Without regard to actual encyclopedic merit?
        • Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with WP:PROF and ask yourself how this guy overcomes the "average professor" test, or even the "average architect" test. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:PROF does not now, nor did it ever, represent consensus. Wikipedia doesn't even have an "average Pokemon" test. Monicasdude 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's weird: you often refer to a non-existent "Air Force Amy" test, but have trouble with an actual guideline? --Calton | Talk 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:PROF isn't a guideline; it's mentioned on a guideline page only as a proposal, and if you bothered to follow the link to the proposal itself, you'd see that the version you favor has been rather solidly rejected, and the existing proposal (still under development) is quite different. As for Air Force Amy, I cite the recent Afd [13] as a precedent (as other editors cite previous AfD decisions), and don't pretend that that there's a consensus WP:Air Force Amy policy or guideline. Monicasdude 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not only does WP:PROF not represent consensus, the nominator has not even produced any evidence that Heymann fails the so-called test. Johntex\talk 05:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's called a "standard" -- they DO have standards in Texas, right? -- and it's widely accepted as such, no matter how much handwaving you and Monicasdude do. More to the point, as a standard for article creation, it's not up to me to prove anyone fails it, it's up to you to prove he passes it -- or are tests done differently in Texas? --Calton | Talk 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's not a matter of how things are done in Texas, its a matter of how they are done on Wikipedia. The deletion process states "When in doubt, don't delete"[14] In other words, the default position is always to keep the article - the burden of proof falls to anyone who wants it to be deleted to achieve at least rough consensus to do so. And I notice that once again you make a gratiuitous comment about Texas, rather than sticking to the substance of the issue at hand. Perhaps that is because there is no substance to your nomination for deletion? Johntex\talk 05:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johntex. Royboycrashfan 04:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I created the article with info from another Wikipedia article, which may have been out of date. According to this he is now an Associate Dean - I'm still investigating. Johntex\talk 04:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, an assistant academic bureaucrat! That's notable! --Calton | Talk 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johntex. Nomination appears to be part of a "Get as Many Academics Out of Wikipedia as You Can" campaign. Monicasdude 04:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John and MD. I warn Calton to be civil and comment on content not contributors (or their origins or affiliations). We have to remember that Wiki is not paper. There is an article about something that he helped to design and build. He certainly merits this article about him. — Scm83x hook 'em 05:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - there doesn't seem to be a perfectly applicable policy here, but being selected by the President to design a house does seem to imply greater notability than the average professor. --Hyperbole 08:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral - see comment Far more notable professors have been cheerfully deleted. Only conceivable reason to keep is that he designed a house for a notable person but notability is not contagious. Dlyons493 Talk 09:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His publication list seems non-existent - he's a good teacher who built a house. Keeping him as a professor would set a whole new standard for professors. He not only fails the average professor test, but probably fails the fourth quartile professor test! If he's to be kept, it can only be as an architect. I've moved some material around in the article to reflect that. Also removed some personal details which, while verifiable, have no relevance to his notability. Dlyons493 Talk 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Dlyons493, who beat me to it. :-) A U.S. president's doctor or personal attorney would not qualify for an article either, if that is their only claim to notability. -- Kjkolb 09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, their attorney would automatically qualify, not sure about their doctor, but their archetect probably not. JeffBurdges 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think their attorney would qualify. By "personal", I meant someone who does an occasional will or trust or something, not someone who defended them in criminal/civil court or sued people on their behalf (even then, I think the case would have to be significant for an article, though). -- Kjkolb 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change my vote to abstain or keep if his publication list looks half way decent. JeffBurdges 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, article does asserts some notability. --Terence Ong 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete profcruft, pure and simple. At some point, we need to weed all these minor prof entries out pour encourager les autres. Eusebeus 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, he's looking at the notability bar at eye-level through those pretty glasses of his. Get some more impressive press coverage about the house-building thing than "cowboysindians.com" and for Wiki's sake he must have something decent on his publication list, he might sneak over. Deizio 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The structure designed for Bush is more notable than just being for a president. The environmental design features incorporated into the structure are also noteworthy. As for the architect himself, he has received other honors aside from the presidential commission and other assignments worthy of note (e.g. Audubon). I am surprised this article is up for deletion consieration...must be some politics going on that i dont know about. Covalent 18:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment have a look at the original article and see how much it's changed - Johntex has put a lot of work into it. It was perfectly reasonable, in my view, to put the original article on AfD - it was focussed on his work as a professor (which he's good at, but not especially notable for). Dlyons493 Talk
  • The article was prodded shortly after creation and was nominated for deletion six minutes after objection from Johntex, an experienced user and the article creator.[15] No attempt at dialogue was made by this nom on the article talk page. That neither seems reasonable to me or very in keeping with WP:AGF. -- JJay 22:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't looked at the timings - certainly more time would have been appropriate (and a little more tact wouldn't have gone amiss) Dlyons493 Talk 22:53, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 06:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hickman

Associate professor of art. Wrote a computer program. Yet another Average Professor, and fails WP:BIO, it appears. Calton | Talk 04:26, 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. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Strempler

President of a Canadian internet pharmacy. That's pretty much it: an average mid-sized company's CEO. Seems to fail WP:BIO, though possibly his company might pass WP:CORP. Calton | Talk 04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being in some reporter's Rolodex doesn't equal actual notability. Hell, I was interviewed and quoted by a newspaper reporter once as knowledgable source about personal webpages (it was the mid-90s). Of course he misspelled my name and got my profession wrong... --Calton | Talk 05:29, 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 06:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Barrie

Reposting of deleted material; non-notable or hoax SigPig 05:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So how do I do this? Do I withdraw the AfD then request a speedy, or do I leave the current ball rolling and wait for a consensus or a wandering admin to drop by and delete? I've never done this before (but vandalizing the Arlington Nat'l Cemetery page just put me over the top...) SigPig 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy delete repost must die In light of Zoe's information, Weak Keep.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, recreated previously deleted material. --Terence Ong 14:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not speedy. The only deleted revision I can see is completely different. For the benefit of those who can't see deleted pages it reads "Grew up in Germany, jewish writer Malachi Barrie was taken to Auschwitz, and died. In Guinness Book of World Records 1942, for: Fattest Man in the World." [20] No vote on notability of current article, sources would be nice. the wub "?!" 15:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does one look at the previous article? I'm not an admin. SigPig 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only admins can view deleted revisions. However, the quote that User:the wub wrote in his vote is "exactly" what the previous version looked like. Pepsidrinka 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The very original was deleted because it was a hoax. This one looks legitamite.

Comment. This particular unsigned comment was inserted by User:69.24.189.229[21] most of whose edits seem to be mostly vandalism, even to user pages. Also there seems to be some connection between this anonymous user and Amaas120; see [22] SigPig 02:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google returns no (non-Wikipedia derived) hits for "Malachi Noble Barrie", "Malachi Barrie". There was a "Malachi Favors" who played with Ray Charles, but that's not the same person. I strongly suspect a hoax: its highly unlikely that anyone who played with Ray Charles returns zero GHits. Gwernol 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The previously-deleted version said, Grew up in Germany, jewish writer Malachi Barrie was taken to Auschwitz, and died. In Guinness Book of World Records 1942, for: Fattest Man in the World.. This is not the same person. Please discuss based on the current content. Not a vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment true, but note that the replacement article appears to be a hoax as well - I was unable to locate any mention of a musician called Malachi Barrie through Google. Just because the hoax is different does not make it any less of one. Gwernol 01:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, transparent hoax. Rumors that his father died in "a freak reed-moistening accident"? Ray Charles (who didn't own a record label) gave him a recording contract? I don't think this "saxaphone" player ever saw the inside of a "rehabatation" facility, or that his father was "diognosed" with chewing tobacco-related cancer. Mostly because none of them ever existed. Monicasdude 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I refer everyone to [23], which also mentions the "reed-moistening incident", which is what (incorrectly) twigged me on to this as being a copy. SigPig 02:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 0 google hits for a "notable 70s musician" suggest a hoax. Batmanand | Talk 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax, no Alexa, no googles, fails WP:MUSIC. I can see the previously deleted article and this is not the same.--Dakota ~ ° 03:40, 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 06:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nindrone Comix

Non-notable comic book company. Both Google (2 hits) and Yahoo (zero hits) failed to find anything substantial.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gate to destiny

Non-notable game (format unspecified) created by non-notable "team". 30 google hits for the phrase, but none when combined with main character's name. I mistakenly re-added {{prod}} for what turned out to be the third (whoops) time. Delete. bikeable (talk) 05:23, 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 userfy and delete. Mailer Diablo 12:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry harriet

nn (Google search yields 676); subject appears to be user M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think thats right. Just because someone doesn't have a direct "claim to fame" doesn't mean that they don't do good work, and there is absolutely no reason why this page should be deleted. Larry Harriet is very popular among the Court TV message board. He deserves to be included in Wikipedia's database. Thankyou for taking the time!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryharriet (talk • contribs)

DO NOT DELETE, USER HAS VALID PTS.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Whitewash Commission

POV fork of 9/11 Commission, whose thin excuse for existence is the use of a pejorative name. Another product of...g'wan, guess. Calton | Talk 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV? Since when is "pov" a criteria for deleteting? Maybe you mean you dont agree with the term? Try Great Satan and Little Satan, they are as much "pov" or "pov fork" as this, that is not at all. --Striver 06:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is POV because it concerns an ideosyncratic non-topic, acting effectively as a vehicle for promoting a particular point of view. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
neologism? Hmm... didnt think about that one... I would have asked for opinions before creating, i hadn't forgoten about that. How new must a expresion be to be counted as a neolgism? Im pretty confident that i can find sourced for it dating to at 2002 or so... Anyone knows? --Striver 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a problem distinguishing between singular and plural uses? According to you, "some notable people" = one person, Alex Jones, who fails on all three words, unless you utter sentences such as "A notable people came to my door last night and sold me some Girl-Scout cookie." --Calton | Talk 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you guys, could you explain to me how this is a pov fork, while Great Satan is not? No? You cant? I guessed so. Thanks for voting in accordance to Wikipedia policies, and not with feeling and opinions in the first hand. --Striver 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Only once"?!--Striver 16:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...so far as I can tell from the article, there has been exactly one meaningful instance (along with however many blog posts) in which the term was employed. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article gives transcript to Jones using it on the CNN show, and gives an audio of a caller using it, and also Jones using it again after the caller used it firest. The term is used all over the place--Striver 04:28, 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 06:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Abbott (The Abbotts)

I'm finding a lot of "Tony Abbott"s through Google, but almost none of them this guy, nor as the author of actual books of these titles. This is a vanity/advert for an Aussie psychic. Calton | Talk 06:10, 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 06:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore rocks

  • Dont Delete Note That Bangalore Entertainment Company is a franchise of Systao Solutions Bangalore. which can be verified by sending a mail to contactus@systao.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.180.226 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Mark Hoppus. JIP | Talk 07:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My Name Is Mark

Delete non-notable podcast – besides it is already covered in Blink-182. --Bruce1ee 06:33, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Grossi

Looks like a hoax/nonsense or both. Peter Grey 06:34, 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 06:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian governments and Indigenous Australians

I'm not sure what this article is trying to achieve, but as it stands it is unacceptable for Wikipedia. cj | talk 06:40, 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 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gray

An unsuccessful minor party candidate in a State election who achieved an unremarkable result. Not notable. cj | talk 07:10, 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 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st Newquay Scout Group

non-notable as local Scout group; vanity jergen 07:10, 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 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lorand Minyo

Google results disprove notability.[24]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adult_Locals

Advertisment for one of many dating web sites. Gu 07:53, 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 merge to Bitmap Brothers - Liberatore(T) 15:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Coleman (computer graphics)

This person does not appear to be notable according to this Google search. CrypticBacon 08:59, 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. JIP | Talk 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGadugi

Article devoted to a non-notable website - a wikipedia fork of all things! -- Aim Here 09:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The part to credit the original source of Wikipedia not as himself. --Kebron 18:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have done a slight disservice to PeyoteMan (talk • contribs) by implying that he merely renamed the previous article. This version is better formatted and shares almost no content with the previous version. He may not have even seen the previous article. Of course, this version should still be deleted. — MediaMangler 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw the other article, I just based it on the materials on the website. I found the site on Inktomi's subscription service. PeyoteMan 02:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the subject; an article with a different name, but same subject, has already been deleted. For the same reasons this one should be deleted as well. --MJ(☎|@|C) 17:54, 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 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applesac

Non-notable company; article created by company's founder. 59 google hits, not all relevant. Prod contested by anon without comment. Henning Makholm 09:57, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massy_Tadjedin

nn


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Holowacz

Vanity article created by User:Holowacz and copied from his (PDF) biography. 451 hits for Eric Vaughn Holowacz and 662 for Eric Holowacz. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:13, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Advance 5: Yoshi's Story

Most of the article's content is speculative. It appeared as a tech demo, showing off the GBA's capabilities at E3. It was never spoken of again. It makes no more sense than an article on the Zelda SW tech demo, or the Mario 128 tech demo, or the FFVII tech demo. Additionally, the same itself is speculative, and most of the article's content is a quote of a provided link. Delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, however, the IGN reference does not mention that Yoshi's Story was going to be Super Mario Advance 5, only that it was used "simply to show the GBA's 2D capabilities ". Perhaps merge the article into Yoshi's Story? --TBC??? ??? ??? 10:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Yes, a tech demo. Not a game, a tech demo. It'd be like if the PSX had a tech demo of a vase that you could examine. Are you saying that every single tech demo deserves an article? And as for Super Mario 128, that is not just a tech demo. It was the name given to his next game. I was referring TO the tech demo, which became Pikmin, not a Mario game. This is not a game, this is a single video of a demo that was not intended to become a game. It was not announced, named or cancelled. It was a tech demo featuring a single level that was not intended to be anything more. - A Link to the Past (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable tech demo for GBA with no evidence it will ever be anything more than that. Merge to GBA article if anyone really cares to (minus the "Super Mario Advance 5" speculation that is totally unsourced).--Isotope23 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mario 128 is just a tech-demo right now. The game will most definitely not feature 128 Marios running around as in the tech demo. In the same way, this tech demo does not necessarily have to show in-game footage in order for it to be considered a tech demo. - Darkhawk (29 March, 2006 @ 17:30 EST)
    • I am dumbfounded as to why people think that tech demos warrant articles JUST because they're of franchises. It's a video featuring Yoshi that will never have anymore content than what is there now. And Super Mario 128 is NOT an article on the tech demo! - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. I don't really think any of this is worth merging, though. BryanG 01:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If we can't even verify the title is correct, the article isn't worth keeping for now. We can always recreate it later. Fagstein 04:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a commercially available program, just a demo. Proto||type 10:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe change the title to a more proper "Yoshi's Island Tech Demo," but this is still a notable incarnation as posters above have noted. Liu Bei 05:04, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afore notation

Tagged {db-band} but contested. Subject looks profoundly uinimportant, but let AfD have its say. Just zis Guy you know? 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BAND and WP:VANITY. No relevant results on allmusic and only 41 unique Google results [27]. --TBC??? ??? ??? 10:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to be very young local band besides own sites on myspace.com and purevolume.com Gu 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claims to notability in article, WP:Music violation - albums, singles, chart places, tours, notable members.  (aeropagitica)  17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is nowhere near WP:BAND. --Hetar 17:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAND. I originally tagged this article for speedy, but its creator, Captain Internet twice removed the tag, appending the last time a comment to the effect that he would improve the article so as to demonstrate the subject's notability. I construed this as a "hangon" request and consequently tagged the article for "hangon" (I moved his message to the talk page, where also I explain my reasoning for applying the "hangon" tag on an article that I tagged for speedy); nevertheless, as the searches above demonstrate clearly, there is no notability to be demonstrated, whatever Captain Internet might add to the contrary. Thus, I think that JzG was altogether correct to bring this to AfD and that, even as typically it might be indecorous of us to support deletion of a page that has been tagged "hangon" (or has been edited in such a way as to reflect "hangon" sentiments, notwithstanding the failure properly to tag the article), here the subject is empirically shown to be non-notable and we needn't to wait for edits to the article. Joe 18:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 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 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike Manager

As much as I love all things game-related in WP, nonnotable, gameguide ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Hmm didn't work last time, but non-notable gameguide/program. See 3rd paragraph "the aim of this article is not just to give a description of what the game involves, but more to give an idea of the basics of how to play the game" ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:52, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 12:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Wolman

Try as I might I can't see where the claims are that this character meets WP:BIO. Unencyclopaedic in tone, and cone that is fixed there is virtually no verifiable data, and of that none seems to establish notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: There were some CP concerns, I have taken time to rewrite those portions (roughly) and remove them. Bobak 17:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, this now has an assertion of notability, and the copyright violations are gone. Which is an improvement :-)
Comment: I'm the one who made the entry. There were confusing problems that led to a duplicate entries so I'd feel fine about everything being deleted and starting all over again, as long as someone doesn't come along and, without doing any research, figures since he hasn't heard of Baron Wolman he doesn't belong in Wikipedia! Feel free to remove all the duplication or whatever. It looks like you've determined that Baron Wolman is a worthy inclusion. You removed the photo which his assistant took. I was confused by all the rights choices, so please advise what to put for the image if the photographer is the copyright holder, period. Thanks! User:Scribblerman 17:32 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The photo must be released under a free license. I would suggest either GFDL-self or public domain if you, the uploader, own the copyright. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. In response to your query to Just zis Guy: AFD debates last for no more than 7 days. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 20:51, 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 merged; now redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prime numbers in nature

An AFD tag was added to this article, but the article was not listed here. I'm listing it now. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The entire article is nonsense, even the part about the cicadas.--C S (Talk) 10:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Seeing that the information about the magicicada in the Prime number was copied almost verbatim from this article, we should probably keep the history of the article around for authorship purposes (as suggested on Talk:Prime number). Schutz 09:18, 4 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Ugail

Non notable academic. the wub "?!" 11:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable enough. Not a professor, no notable publications mentioned. Bhoeble 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, decent enough Google Scholar profile. There seem to be cultural differences between Euro-American users and others about how to assert professorial notability, but that's not a good reason to keep deleting articles on subjects who have (at least) reasonable claims to notability, often on very notable subjects. Monicasdude 14:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that he is notable as an academic: a senior lecturer is roughly the equivalent of associate professor. Unless it can be established that he is a world-leader in his field (in which case, why isn't he a full professor?), I think we have to assume insufficient notability. Bucketsofg 21:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No apparent assertion of notability. Fagstein 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two credible published references at Google Books [30]. Dr Ugail may not be a world leader in his field, but since the Republic of Maldives has only 300,000-odd citizens, I think he counts as a notable national figure. Humansdorpie 22:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dr Ugail has a credible list of publications recorded in his university staff page [31]. He has contributed articles to major international research journals and international conferences in his field. Despite being relatively young (34 years old to date) he has major research grants (e.g. see for example [32]). Though one may not consider him to be a world leading figure (eg. not a professor) one should also note his rate of progress in his career. For example, within a short space of 2.5 years he has been promoted to Senior lecturer which the usual academics take on average 10+ years. He is certainly a notable and respected figure in the Republic of Maldives. More importantly he is a source of motivation to many young Maldivians.

Dr Ugail's recent research in the area of 3D modelling and animation has been reported in the media. Examples inlcude, Yorkshire Post [33], Innovations Report [34], Yorkshire Forward [35], IOFILM news [36]. Though not a full professor he is an established resarcher and acedemic in his field. Simply not being a full professor is not a good enough excuse for deleting this page. --82.47.145.96

  • Keep Dr Ugail appears at the top of the google search for "ugail" or "hassan ugail". Kurumba


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're taking the hobbits to isengard

No indication of this flash movie's significance. Proposed for deletion by User:Weregerbil, but User:AliceV reverted without comment.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bryan

Non-notable horserider (well, not yet, just as soon as he's finished his accountancy exams) claiming notability but Googling for "Tom Bryan" dressage produces one possibly unrelated MySpace account. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also tried googling ""tom bryan" dressage" a week or so ago when an acquaintance of mine told me of his website, http://www.tombryan.co.uk . Although the website was live last week, it appears to have gone down over the weekend, although when I contacted his website's administrator he claimed this was temporary. User:markpearce1979
  • I am the author of this entry. Agreed, googling his name does not come up with any hits due to problems in linking his homepage as described above with google. I have been advised that this is temporary (as unfortunately are the problems with his webpage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombryanfan (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster (Lost)

Deleted once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster (Lost), this is sufficiently different that I am not comfortable deleting as a repost, but the core problem remains: the name is made up by fans and lacks a reliable source, and the balance of the content is also largely speculative. There is nothing here which can't be encyclopaedically covered without the speculation in the article for Lost. Similar concerns raised in Talk:The Monster (Lost). Just zis Guy you know? 11:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep. There's already an apparent consensus that Lost characters are notable enough for Wikipedia - and this is a recurring character in Lost. There are very obvious problems with this article, not least of which is that The Monster is not the official name of the character, but I see these as problems to be worked out rather than reasons for deletion. If we've already decided that Lost fancruft is notable enough for Wikipedia - and I think we have - then this should stay. --Hyperbole 21:16, 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 deleted as nn-bio.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 12:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murray storm

Tagged as db-bio but makes some assertion of notability. Geogre's Law failure, notability is questionab le per the redlinked status of the businesses and projects mentioned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of news aggregators

Article is nothing but a collection of external link spam. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. WP:NOT a web directory.-- GraemeL (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't matter if the list has been sorted or not, it remains a violation of Wikipedia policy to have an article that is a mere collection of external links. If the article was a list of internal articles about agregators, such as List of news web sites, that would be fine. As it is, there is no way to guess at which sites are worthy of inclusion and which were added as spam. --GraemeL (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what you say. But I don't think this is a "mere collection of external links". This is an annotated list, with additional information like capabilities and compatibility of the aggregators. While most of the aggregators have external links, I counted 13 wikilinks without external links, which convinces me the author has tried to find internal links where possible and is not intentionally spamlinking. Someone put a lot of work into this list.Slowmover 17:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more point. The example you gave of a "good" list, List of news web sites, is not useful at all. This list can be replaced by a category because all the links are just pointers to wiki articles, and there is no additional content that expands on the meaning of the list. If it was deleted, no information would be lost. So its a good candidate for deletion/replacement with a category. That cannot be said of the article which is the subject of this debate. Slowmover 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users who come to this page probably are looking for an aggregator to use, as opposed to literally wanting a list of all news aggregators, so merging prominent aggregators gives users what they want while removing cruft from WP. -- Noah Tye 09:02, 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 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gut feeling

article belongs to Wiktionary and there already is such an entry there Mumpitz 12:27, 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 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News sources in India

Article is nothing but a collection of external link spam. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. WP:NOT a web directory.-- GraemeL (talk) 12:30, 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 kill it with fire. DS 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea squirrel

Sea Squirrel is a mythical creature. Without references we can only assume that this myth was created by the author of this article. (Prod tag was removed by anon.) -- RHaworth 12:30, 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 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doupine

Appears to be spam, no sign of meeting WP:CORP, created by oilpainting (talk · contribs). Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 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 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spice records

Not notable Sludge 12:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information is already available on other pages - namely each song's page Rimmers 01:36, 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 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Moldovan

This guy seems to be as famous as me. Poppypetty 13:44, 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipaedophile

Possible hoax. NN website at the very least. Computerjoe's talk 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN -Gerrit CUTEDH 14:55, 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 - rewrite acknowledged, but it doesn't appear to address the concerns of the 'delete's. Flowerparty■ 23:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Harding

I can't make up my mind whether to speedy this one as an attack or whether to flag it for extreme cleanup to remove the POV. The answer, I guess, hinges on whether the guy is thought notable. If he is, then the crap about child support needs to go (I've left it so you can see what I mean). Just zis Guy you know? 18:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Appears notable. The child support thing is covered in the article Glenn, and could be mentioned briefly here but the level of detail is excessive. The rest of the article badly needs sources and cleanup. Powers 19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing it. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got mixed up, I thought both articles were about the same person. I'm going to have to abstain. I guess he might be notable within the boomerang community but I'm not sure that warrants an article. No Guru 21:23, 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 - Liberatore(T) 15:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dolan

There are millions of people on this planet that have a much stronger record of community involvement than A. Dolan does, and are more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Now that Dolan has resigned as Chair of the Green Party of BC, there's no reason why he should be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prescottbush (talk • contribs)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 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 (9k, 9d). Hermione1980 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages

There is no need for this. There was a very old deletion debate Talk:List of Harry Potter chapter titles in other languages/Delete, but the consensus is rather sloppy and now this is just a title list in other languages. There is no discussion of anything about the translations, just a bare list. We have a sidebar with links to wikipedias in other languages, and for this particular topic, we have Harry Potter in translation which actually has some interesting content, including a list of languages the books have been translated into. All six Harry Potter books have articles in many languages, where this information could easily be accessed. I don't think the whole Harry Pottern in translation series is bad, but Wikipedia is not babelfish.com. Delete. Mangojuice 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, titles of a book are easily verifiable even if they're in other languages. Apparently, though, there have been issues on the page in the past where editors simply translated the title into another language (Klingon) without that translation actually existing. Mangojuice 12:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I spend some time in the deletion area to find things that interest me, and you are absolutely everywhere. Since you have a suggestion of how it can be improved, then why delete it? All it does in remove the article, and instead of having an article that could be good once improved, we have no article at all.68.192.25.106 01:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it still can be improved. It is not hopeless.68.192.25.106 01:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The concern with this list is that it consists of titles of each Potter book translated into another language, in the script most used for that language. Most of it is likely incomprehensible to the majority of English Wikipedians, either because they don't know the language, the script, or both. Where the script is comprehensible (or even preferred), the user is better off reading about it in that tongue (and script) elsewhere. The second issue we have to confront is how to maintain this? There is, incredibly for such a long list, not a single reference. Wikipedia is a very welcoming encyclopedia, but it has certain constraints. We do not have a panel of expert editors or professional peer-reviewers or teams of expert translators. We cannot reasonably be expected to maintain a list in the mainspace which the vast majority of us can't even read (with understanding). This was a novel idea, and I wish I could support its inclusion, but given the above concerns I can't. —Encephalon 01:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea has merit, it just needs to be better organized and focused. Perhaps re-ordering it by region, rather than title. Also, the inclusion of English translations and images of the book covers would make this a much more useful entry. Definitely worth fixing, not deleting.Rhindle The Red 12:55, 4 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. JIP | Talk 09:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netceeing

Relates to "the posting on the web of rap lyrics". Has a "list of prominent persons" that includes several very insulting entries. —This unsigned comment was added by Alethiophile (talk • contribs) .

  • Cleanup, there seems to be enough salvagable material there. Just strip away all the dumb vandalism and she'll be okay. Lankiveil 11:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Considering content "insulting" is not a reason for deletion.
  • Delete Only returns 1930 hits on google the first of which is Wikipedia, so its still a neologism. Note that whether or not it is insulting is completely irrelevant. JoshuaZ 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:44] <freakofnurxture|talk>
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism still. (And yes, strongly agree that offensiveness is not a reason to delete). JoshuaZ 14:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a reiteration of a previous vote by JoshuaZ. --Hyperbole 21:23, 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  (aeropagitica)  06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making Comics Studios, HaVeN, Percival Constantine

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 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 - Liberatore(T) 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Man's

Delete. NN pub, just the address in the article, no explanation of notability. Prod removed by creator. This is a waste of AfD time - there need to be criteria for getting rid of obviously unworthy entries by CSD means. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 15:05, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 17:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icy Hot Stuntaz

While it has about 21,000 google hits, all vaguely relating to the same thing, and it was briefly an internet fad (and I mean very briefly) it didn't stick, was not memorable or notable in any special way, and the article as written has nothing to offer. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:11, 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 by Syrthiss

Tiger party

Delete non-notable musical project – have not released anything yet and a Google on "Tiger party" "Carlos Gomez-Hernandez" -wikipedia, returns nothing. --Bruce1ee 15:14, 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 le crap. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Crap

Nonsense, but not patent nonsense. Hoax. Originally prod'd, but prod removed w/o comment. -- JLaTondre 15:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia existed in the early twentieth century and you posted an article about Picaso before he became famous, or if anyone else did, it should have been deleted because it is impossible tl tell for sure who will be a famous artist or musician. Someone would eventually notice this article, and only good articles should be in Wikipedia. Academic Challenger 21:53, 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 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WorldWide Dream Builders

Similar to TEAM, this article is a hodgepodge of advertising, unverified accusations and responses to said accusations, and other cruft. Any relevant information can be incorporated into Independent Business Owner, Amway or Quixtar; the rest can be deleted. Paul 15:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN, advertisement. I hope nobody is going to cite the MSNBC coverage as evidence of notability. Using that standard, we'll need another 100,000 articles to cover every tinpot scheme ever seen on the business news media, which is mostly a thinly disguised advertisement anyway. Slowmover 16:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I skimmed the MSNBC story, and I didn't even see any mention of WWDB. Maybe it's there and I missed it, but even if it is, the story deals with Amway/Quixtar in general, and doesn't confer notability to WWDB. Paul 19:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Not really an advertisement per se, but just more Amway MLM-cruft. There are dozens of these IBO development groups (like Team of Destiny, et al). An article about the concept of these groups and their relationship to Quixtar or Amway might be appropriate and encyclopedic, but really this could all be merged to Amway in my opinion.--Isotope23 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23 Bucketsofg 21:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multi-million dollar business? Meaning what? The article doesn't even make it clear what kind of "business" this is. A "professional development" group? What are they developing, their WP advert article? With all due respect, sir, the article doesn't say much of substance because it doesn't appear that there is much to be said. Paul 03:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then add the info? Research the company? The WorldWide group's business includes tax accounting, voice mail services, internet service provider, business consulting, travel, and more...theres a lot to be said. It doesn't necessarily have a huge online presence, but thats partially because WWDB has made an effort to subvert that information in some cases. Jack Thompson has a sizeable entry, but by many people's accounts, he has "notability" because he got mentioned once or twice on the news...meanwhile, the people who have dealt with this company over the past 30 years have been in the MILLIONS. Not notable? No, just a different target audience. Gallwapa 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gallwapa - what you are saying may very well be correct, and warrants some investigation - however, "WorldWide Dream Builders" would appear to be a different entity than the World Wide Group. The WWG may or may not pass notability muster, but the subject matter of the current page definitely does not. Thank you for your comments, please help providing any relevant info. Best, Paul 08:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that I am no longer associated with WorldWide Dreambuilders. WWDB is the original entity that "WWG" has sprung out of, the terms are interchangable when referring to the company. I'm certainly in favor of trying to massage the article, but, I'm not a 'huge' wikipedian...so... getting it to an acceptable state is hurdle completely. At any rate, I don't know what else to say. If it goes, it goes... but I would hope at least some people have gotten use out of this article (Its got a fair number of views, just from tracking referrals out from it). Gallwapa 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Thompson has notability because he is a shameless publicity whore who will say/do just about anything to get his name mentioned in the media (and one of the worst contributors to our nation's growing smug problem)... and it works. There just isn't enough verifiable 3rd party reporting about WorldWide Dream Builders to meet WP:CORP.--Isotope23 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gallwapa: Your contributions are appreciated, and your input to this discussion is valuable. It looks as if the best solution here is to delete the article and merge some sort of mention of it into the IBO or Quixtar article. Isotope - I share your sentiments about Mr. Thompson, although publicity "whore" may not be the accepted scientific term...desparate, shameless, etc. should suffice. Paul 22:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Publicity whore sums him up nicely, though... heh heh heh. Gallwapa 05:19, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M16 rifle in popular culture

This is not an encyclopedia article. It's a list of movies and videogames. Apparently it was created because this sort of thing was getting added to M16 rifle and people didn't like it there. Well, I don't see how it's any better as a seperate page. There's also M4 Carbine in popular culture, which is a very similiar list, just for a shorter variant of the same rifle. See also the talk pages. Friday (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — So it's a topic fork from a notable page? I guess I'm not seeing why this page deserves to be deleted, as it's related to the main topic. — RJH 16:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to me, it treads too close to a indiscriminate collection of information. We could have List of people who work in factories where M16 parts are made, too, but it wouldn't have any encyclopedic value either. As I said on the talk page, this could all be covered by a single sentence in M16 rifle. But, I realize not everyone may agree with that, hence the Afd. Even if people want to keep, does anyone have an opinion on whether M4 Carbine in popular culture should be a seperate artice? It was a redirect for a while but was recently reverted. If we must have such a list, so be it, but do we need seperate lists for every different variation of the rifle? There are verifiability concerns there- see my comments on Talk:M4_Carbine_in_popular_culture. Friday (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. The M16 and its variants are so ubiquitous it's pointless to name every movie or video game it appeared in. I doubt there's really a significant appearance like a flight sim might be for an aircraft. This isn't a rare gun that appeared in one or two movies; it appears in practically every modern war movie and modern FPS. It'd be like a Honda Civic in popular culture article with an entry for every 2-bit film where you could see the Civic parked somewhere--Mmx1 16:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page is supposed to list only significant appearences, such as being used in major scene (such as scarface), or by major cast (such in a Platoon. Weeding out "2-bit" appearences would require a cleanup tag (or at worst involve a dispute over page content) not a AFD. I would prefer a written format, rather than a list, but this is what people who work on the page have done.
  • Strong delete as indiscriminate list. Are we going to scrutinize every frame of every film looking for M16 sightings? And then what about the hundreds of thousands of other products one could find in a film? Slowmover 16:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Again, the page needs guidlines for inclusion but it is far from indiscriminate. The M16 is one of the most famous firearms of all time, and one of the few that actually make ANY appearence in film. As per my other comments elsewhere, it is certainly possible to have guidlines for the page.
*Comment Use by the film industry of one of the most famouse firearms ever made should be judged on its own value. There may be to many such pages, but firearm use in film and games is important aspect of firearms history. There are some firearms created soley for use in film. There are items not worthy of pop culture pages no doubt, but that is not a reason against notable objects with them. Ve3 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with doing this type of page since we have an article on M16 and we also have many lists of movies and videogames. Hence, would seem to be highly encyclopedic. -- JJay 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an indiscriminate list, purely trivial. I don't have a problem with having a "Popular culture" section within an article, as long as it is kept short and under control. However, as soon as people spot a trivia section, they have an uncontrollable urge to add something they've spotted at their favorite movie or game, and it gets out of hand. I'd rather not have popular culture sections at all than having to constantly revert anime and video game fans additions to keep articles encyclopedic.--Squalla 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure I find this "highly encyclopedic"; actually, how about indiscriminate listcruft. Eusebeus 18:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge them back to the pages the came from. A written article rather then item list would be better for them, but they are well deserved part of firearm articles overall. Pointing out firearm use in movies is well established in firearm articles, similar to how other types of use are listed (e.g. civilian, military users). Ve3 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThere's at least 40 entries on this page and I wager over 100 if you look really hard. It's also very hard to distinguish between these appearances by notability, as I noted above. Do we count screentime? Must you have at least 1000 frames to qualify? There should be a statement about its ubiquity, but other than that, how do you distinguish what makes it into the article? Unless you can give some inclusion/exclusion criteria that makes this list manageable, I say toss the whole bit. --Mmx1 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether a page is notable or not would be a dispute over page content, which could be handled in turn by those concerned (perhaps being handled by a major cast memeber?). At worst, it would make the page a candiate for cleanup, not deletion. I should add these were moved off already long M16 and M4 pages. I would also point out FN P90 in popular culture was proposed for deletion, h had similar arguments levled against it and the result was to keep. Finally, I would support doing a proper merger of AR-15 related firearms into one popculture page. The idea of adding stricter guidlines could also be a good alternative deletion.
  • Weak keep per RJH. --Hyperbole 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has come up before; most recently with the FN P90 in popular culture article. There seems to be widespread support for splitting these articles off the parents. Unless we make a widespread policy change to merge them all back in, Keep this one. Georgewilliamherbert 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's better to spin off the "...in poplar culture" sections of articles to their own pages, rather than keep them cluttering up the main pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the best argument I've heard for keeping this sort of stuff, but it means we're putting junk in the encyclopedia in order to keep junk out of the encyclopedia. Isn't better yet still to remove the cruft from the main articles and NOT put it somewhere else? Friday (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, there is a lot of this junk, and if you want to go around removing it from all of the articles it's in, you're going to have an uprising on your hands. This is the cleanest solution. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If people really think there could be an article here, not just a list, why not work on Guns in popular culture or something? Does the M16 family specifically have a different impact on popular culture than any other group of similiar rifles? Is anyone actually saying that an AR15 with a 20-inch barrel has a different impact on popular culture than an AR15 with a 14-inch barrel? I think we're either going to end up with a simple list (which should go away for not being an article) or a bunch of original research about the impact of specific models of guns on culture (which should go away for being original research.) Friday (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're coming at it backwards. The logic is... weapon X is notable, and gets an article. In some cases, specific usage in popular culture (movies, games, sometimes books or other) is sufficiently notable to include in that article. In some cases, there's so much of that info that splitting it off seems like the right thing to do. It's perfectly reasonable to question whether that info should be notable; I did so a few months ago, but the conclusion keeps coming up "yes". As long as it's notable enough to keep somewhere, how do we organize it... which is the real problem. Georgewilliamherbert 23:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe there's no getting around the fundamental disagreement. Tools are great topics for an encyclopedia. This is why we have sledgehammer. Notice that we do not have List of people who have used a sledgehammer or List of stores that sell sledgehammers. If reputable sources are talking about the impact of guns on popular culture, by all means someone can make an article about that. Keeping lists for individual guns (and, worse yet, even variations of the same gun) doesn't make sense to me until someone produces a reliable source that says that gun X has a different impact on popular culture than gun Y. I think we're getting this sort of stuff mostly because it's videogame-related, not because it belongs in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a good idea for an article as it would remove M16-cruft from the main article and create a description on how, why and where the gun is used in popular culture. However, this article is just a list of media in which images or mentionings of the gun appear. This content is inappropriate as a separate article, and inappropriate in the M16 main article. --maclean25 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ludicrously pointless, and misnamed: it's just a list of pop-culture products featuring the M-16 -- a huge trivia magnet, as Squalla points out. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm with Friday on this one. These appearances have to be notable. Otherwise it's just pointless listcruft. If a movie discusses the M16, have a paragraph about it in the M16 article. Otherwise, it's uninteresting trivia. Fagstein 06:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not an encyclopedia article. Pure list. MaNeMeBasat 07:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When you're considering where the best place for M16 cruft is, you really need to include 'nowhere' in your list of choices. Proto||type 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It could become an examination of the rifle's prominence in film and other media over the decades. Right now it's at the first step. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:48
  • Merge to M16 (rifle) or delete. Stifle 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Proto. --Khoikhoi 01:00, 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 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleins

fan cartoon ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:03, 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 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Wai's Sonic 2 Beta

Vanity. Non-notable website. Advertising, by the admission of the page's creator. (Admission in this thread, access restricted to existing members due to forum policy.) ThomasWinwood 16:16, 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 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Gurus

This seems to have been created largely as an advert (I've removed the links), for a group that is distinctly non-notable. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 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  (aeropagitica)  06:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English vs. Czech names

It's a list of names. Doesn't belong in an Encylopedia. GfloresTalk 16:59, 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 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enhan

Possible hoax? Non-notable. GfloresTalk 17:08, 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 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Melissa:) As Seen on TV


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Gordon Lawrence

Has a previous no consensus AFD. No idea why it was AFD'd, ask User:Andyru. Just listing it properly. kotepho 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC) This article was nominated for deletion before when I was extremely new to Wikipedia. The argument was not presented well. Please take a look at the following discussions: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Oosterman ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Williamo1 ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citywide_Church ][reply]

Delete: user Williamo1 (and his socks) are using this article as a personal soapbox. Look at the edit history. Any person just diving into this issue is going to be immediately horrified at the past of Roy Gordon Lawrence. However, nobody on Wikipedia ever cared about him before Williamo1 first created the page. It was created in a manner to portray public informance (seems justified)... however, quickly has turned into a personal vendetta and soapbox for him. Williamo1 seems to be using this as a sex offender registry, tracking the whereabouts of this person. He pays no heed to the fact this man has changed his lifestyle form his past and pokes fun as his current life as well as tried to descredit the church he attends by suggesting all sorts of crazy things (saying he won't cooperate with police etc.) This article either needs to be deleted to remove the soapbox (which only Williamo1 cares about), or at least its history should be deleted (kept as current) and Williamo1 and his IP should be banned from further edits (I don't wish to edit it either). Note that nobody in Wikipedia cared about this subject matter except Williamo1 (and myself) -- though a few people have stepped in to help control the POV editing by Williamo1 and another stepped in to help format the article better. Andyru 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I recognize that relisted this as AFD may (at first glance) seem like the wrong approach -- at it may be. I tried RFC once, and had no response (though I wonder if I did it correctly). Please have a look at the links I listed above... it does take a little time to understand the soapbox allegation -- with a little looking you'll see exactly what I mean. Advice appreciated -- I hope I've stated things clearly enough, as a first glance at this issue won't provide you with enough info to see where I'm coming from Andyru 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is why. kotepho 18:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arundhati bakshi 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons I gave in the last AFD. This article was created originally as an attack, and the creator has constantly tried to defame people other than Lawrence through "guilt by association". I will be quite happy if it's deleted, but as explained in the past, it has been fixed (by another editor, and by me), and it does qualify for inclusion. Before judging the article, please review the article's history, as it can flip back and forth quite frequently. --Rob 19:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything suggesting encyclopedia-level notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO... since the last AfD this guy still isn't notable.--Isotope23 19:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete We don't need an article on every criminal/alleged criminal and I'm not sure what makes this guy special. kotepho 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep. The question is verifiability and notability. Both are clearly established by the numerous stories in Canadian newspapers and newsmagazines. If there is some perceived difficulty with fairness, the article should be edited to undo what is the problem. But just because this guy's past is unpleasant doesn't make it any less a part of the record. Bucketsofg 20:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google search doesn't find much "numerous". Besides, one newspaper article does not a notabler person make. Fagstein 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, didn't you notice the original event occurred years before Google was founded? Did you know that they published newspapers and magazines on paper at one time (I hear they still do)? There's this thing called a library. You can find all sorts of stuff at it, some of which isn't on the free web. --Rob 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per kotepho. Sandstein 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--RandM 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kosiam 01:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 04:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OMG, Man charged with crime! He can come back when he assassinates a king. Fagstein 06:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Next time, read the article, and read the referenced articles, before making such an ill-informed comment. Some people here are writing an encyclopedia. If you wish to clown around, there are many places you can do that. I respect those who disagree with me on this article. I don't respect people who disrespect this project. --Rob 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No vote :: looking at the "History", and the article style, this appears to be in the style of an attack page. What makes this individual notable in an encyclopaedic sense ? If he is notable, why does the article have to deal in perjoratives and POV, rather than simple facts ? On the other hand, is there any public-good reason for not starting an article List of known paedophiles and their current addresses ? -- With respect, Simon Cursitor 07:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Comments withdrawn, in a spirit of further respect -- Simon Cursitor 13:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What specifically are you talking about? Given the volitile nature of this article, you'll have to specify (with a link), which version you're referring to, regarding "perjoratives and POV". I beleive the current version deals strictly with facts, at the expense of being very concise, and not fully elaborating on the broader controversies (old and new) and public policy debates triggered by the person (old and new). Generally, we don't delete articles because old versions had problems. Also, I can't tell from your comments if you're seriously suggesting List of known paedophiles and their current addresses or if that was sarcasm (in any event, I wouldn't want such a list here). Sorry in advance, as I'm sure I misunderstood/misinterpretted some of your comments. --Rob 07:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but also because the subject is simply not notable enough, per Simon Cursitor and Fagstein. If we are to debate honestly the merits of retaining this article, it has to be on the basis of notability. This man's notability ultimately derives from acts he committed 15 years ago. I don't see national or international press coverage of these events; I don't see wide or constantly maintained press interest in this individual and, although I note Rob's point about paper -v- Web, I don't see widespread Internet coverage. The fact that the subject held a responsible position when he committed crimes may interest or titillate us, but I do not believe that it confers notability. Humansdorpie 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you don't feel there was *sufficient* national coverage. But surely you acknowledge there was national coverage. You're statement "I don't see national or international press coverage of these events" seems to ignore coverage in a national magazine, as well as newspapers from Alberta, BC, and Ontario. That is national coverage. Again, I'm fine if you don't think that's sufficient. But you're making a literal mistatement. It's also offensive to suggest this is done to "titillate us". Read the article. There's no "titillation". And yes, I concede your point that in 1991 there was not "widespread Internet coverage" (I don't see how you note my point, then seem to miss it). Can I ask you if you actually read the cited offline news stories (which is necessary to have a basis for the opinions you expressed)? Again, I got no problem with people deciding this is not notable, in their opinion, but I object to what I see are factual errors expressed.. --Rob 15:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right - I should have been more specific and stated that I didn't see any significant national coverage. My point about the Internet is that it is reasonable to expect a greater Internet presence for anyone notable enough for an online encyclopaedia - no matter when the events happened. I don't believe I suggested the article was designed to titillate people, and I'm afraid I disagree that it is necessary to read the offline news stories to express an opinion on the notability of this individual. Humansdorpie 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm quite fine with you deleting this article. But, I seriously hope you would agree that there are many other articles, that are supported largely by offline sources, which very much warrant inclusion, and are of great value (note: I'm talking of other articles here, not this one). Some of the best references for articles are still on paper. The fact we're online in no way means we should hostile to offline sources. In fact, the offline sources are often more reliable than online ones. --Rob 17:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Joe dimitri 00:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • STRONG KEEP The Roman Catholic priests have articles - why not protestants? This man made headlines many time,,,as a police officer and pastor he is notorious. The Grace Baptist Church web page ,shows he is still active preaching and teaching,,,,that could possibly lead to more headlines,,Again this should be kept,,many people think so. Frankly it worries me that YOU want his past hidden i.e ...User Andyru ARE YOU WELL??? .Jugementonyou 00:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)),.[reply]
    • - Jugementonyou (nice hidden name), you are either a socketpuppet or meatpuppet of user Williamo1 (no, that is NOT an insult, look up the meanings of those terms on Wikipedia and you'll understand). You've already proved this by your attempts to redit the William Oosterman article (which were deleted by admins promptly). DO NOT remove votes from this page! You removed my nomination statement. You should read it. Notorious? Maybe you should look in mirror first. Don't pretend to know me and hide behind a secret identity. Andyru 01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to concur. This is one of the lamest sock/meat puppet attempts I've seen. --Rob 08:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree: is a confessed sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history and comments on project/talk page. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please erasing this does not make any sense Yuckfoo 00:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Under the notable people in Wikipedia it define notoriety as "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Based on the news coverage of this guy, I would definitly say he has notoriety. I say keep because what is there now is basic public knowledge of events that were considered quite newsworthy. So long as it stays neutral, let it stay. What he did was pretty horrendus. Now he has to live with that it is public knowledge. —This unsigned comment was added by SunbirdInc (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP I don't think by deleting this page would be helpfull to the community! Graceb 18:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first and only edit. Reminder: all these sock votes (on both sides) will be disregarded. --Rob 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree: is a proven sockpuppet or meatpuppet vote as per contribution history. Disregard. Please, no more sock votes as per [ WP:sock ]. Andyru 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be good to factor out ALL the votes by people who just signed up to vote (for EITHER delete or keep). Fair is fair. I bet if you trace the sock/meatpuppet IPs, they are all from Ottawa. This page wasn't meant as a "pissing match" (pardon the expression), it was made to get comments from outside neutral parties. This only goes to further prove my point in the nom, that nobody cares about this outside the scope of two churches which split. Hence, my original vote to delete off of this encyclopedia. Andyru 19:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems both notable and verifiable. AfD is not the place to bring up problems like this. I would encourage all of those who were heavaly involved with this article in the past to voluntarily walk away from it and never look back. —A 20:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have I understood you correctly ? You want the people *involved* with this to "walk away" ? Presumably, they are the ones likeliest to know the *facts* in this instance. Do I take it that, while they are doing so, and thereafter, you will yourself enter into an undertaking that neither personally nor through others will you in any way edit the page, so that "the rest of us" can be sure that the Wiki entry (if this clears AfD) remains unbiased and objective ? -- Simon Cursitor
      • It seems that you have. There is no embargo on facts. If those involved were able to locate and cite the sources in the article, others will be able to as well. If this is not the case, you need to ask yourself if you are in fact performing original research. —A 03:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin Request: if a strong enough consensus is not reached (to delete the article) by end of voting, would it be possible (as per the nom) to at least delete the history of this article and leave it under its current (neutral) state? If there is a IP/userid specific edit restriction for an article... it may also be useful here. As you can see, even the AFD page becomes a subject of nonencyclopedic nonsense. Yes, I'm a part of it, but I'm on the side of getting it OFF Wikipedia (which I think is good). So, I will voluntarily ask that I be one of the banned editors (if this article survives AFD) Andyru 14:32, 3 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 17:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podium solutions

No assertion of notability -SCEhardT 17:44, 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 17:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uranuspknockwood

Extremely minor character from "Powerhouse," a short story by Eudora Welty. A transcription of the story reveals that "Uranus Knockwood" is simply a name on a telegram. This might be worthy of note on a page about the short story "Powerhouse" or Thirteen Stories, the collection containing "Powerhouse" (neither currently exists), but as a separate article it's bound to remain a minor stub at best. I'd bet this was added more for the silliness of the name than for any encyclopedic content.

Incidentally, the namespace is incorrect. Aside from the obvious formatting issue, there's no evidence that Uranus Knockwood's middle initital is "P". - Rynne 18:03, 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 17:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epa Donoso

Non-notable person. GfloresTalk 18:05, 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 transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Companies in Atlas Shrugged

Transwiki to wikibooks:Atlas Shrugged and delete. Fragments of an early effort at a wikibook, a Cliff's Notes to Atlas Shrugged; much of the rest of the project is already on Wikibooks. Encyclopedic material has been merged to main article. Septentrionalis 18:28, 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. Should have been an A7. Mailer Diablo 11:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Seacrest

Fails WP:BIO. I can't find any bios of Ryan Seacrest that indicate he has a sister. NBC's website lists a past winner of the lucky case game as "Jessica Sechrist", not "Seacrest". The page was previously deleted by User:Mushroom since it does not assert notability, and I think that is still the case. Big Smooth 18:40, 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 merging; already done, and apparently no one objected. - Liberatore(T) 15:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous flow production

Page merged to mass production on suggestion. Misterpurple 18:57, 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 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distant Early Warning (disambiguation)

This disambig is pointless. It only points to one article with this term in the article's name. And then there is only one more link to a music album not with this term in its name. P199 19:07, 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 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headcall

Was tagged speedy, but that was contested (and companies are not speediable anyway). Taken here for a closer scrutiny. - Liberatore(T) 19:19, 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 A7, performed by Gflores. -- Saberwyn 20:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas "THE STEAMROLLER" Graham

repeatedly removed db tags for a non notable bio nomination Arundhati bakshi 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn, vanity GfloresTalk 19:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delele nn, not sure if it's vanity or attack, but either way... --Deville (Talk) 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, vanity, or attack. Take your pick. Brian G. Crawford 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 20:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deleteOK. Y'all are a bunch of squares and tools. Now, I can understand that y'all care about Wikipedia. However, why do you have to actively go around enforcing the rules. This should be done passively. For example, if you're browsing along and you find the article for Heritage College (the only page this was linked to) and you look under notable alumni and you're like who is this Jonas THE STEAMROLLER Graham and then you look and you're like: "Oh. Not worthy of a Wikipedia article. (yet!)" and so you delete it, then I would be fine with that. But as far as I can tell, y'all have nothing to do with "Hurtige" so you do this for no point. You're just doing this enforce the rules. But rules are made for a reason: because breaking them causes harm to others. But seriously: how much harm does this cause? Think about it: how much harm does this cause? I stole 2mb or so from Wikipedia: big deal. Do you know how much bandwidth you're wasting by continuously going back to my page to make sure I haven't removed the "some square wants to delete this page" thing? I'll give you an analogy here: imagine you're a cop. Do you go around looking for people smoking weed and drinking in parks after midnight or do you go around looking out for more serious things such as assault and arson and stuff? Of course if you see somebody smoking weed in front of children or something whilst patrolling, or if you get a call that a bunch of drunken kids are threatening to burn down houses near the park, you might go and charge them for one of those MINOR crimes. But actively pursuing the small stuff is just not worth it. In fact, the fact that y'all care so much makes me pity you! What do you gain from doing this? Only a reputation for being a stiffly stifferson, you stiffly stifferson. Just ignore it and you'll hardly notice it. But no... despite the fact that you don't get paid for it, you've got to waste your time enforcing all the stupid rules and stuff that nobody cares about. Way to go! But I am willing to compromise: if y'all give me a week to show it off to my friends, you can delete it after that. But until that: Do not delete! --Mcdeltat 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete NOW per everyone except captain vanity. Grandmasterka 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmasterka: you, sir, are a loser! --Mcdeltat 20:14, 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 - Liberatore(T) 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infosec Institute

Non notable training institute. The article is nothing but an advertisement for the nn company --Ragib 19:24, 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  (aeropagitica)  06:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analog Paladins

I prodded this a few days ago, but the tag was removed without explanation. This is a small webcomics hosting site that doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Also, WP:VANITY is likely an issue, since the article was created by User:MeekoAngelo, who appears to be the site's webmaster. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, vanity. Bucketsofg 20:40, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Chairboy. Proto||type 10:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SopeGirls

This is a Web site by a group of girls who do manga-style webcomics. Perhaps a potential article for Comixpedia, but it doesn't currently meet WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:43, 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 Userfy. Stifle 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kartikey Srivastava

Evident nn-bio, but claims notability (or at least fame), so speedy tag removed and article sent here. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 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 redirect; achieves same end as delete anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Kaffee

Minor character in movie for which main characters do not have separate pages; no point A2Kafir 19:53, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anal jewelry

Not encyclopedic or notable enough for its own article. As it stands, it's a dicdef plus advertising. Brian G. Crawford 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't see why we can't have the topic mentioned in two places. It would be harder to find the it if it were embedded in "non-piercing body jewelry". People already reading about non-piercing body jewelry could be interested in this topic as well, but I'm sure that there are others looking just for info on anal jewelry. It's definitely informative, as I certainly did not know there was such a thing as anal jewelry until I saw the article.

    Also, I agree with Easyas12c in that this entry was not in clear view of visitors until it was listed on the AFD page. In any case, the world is full of offensive things, and hiding them isn't in Wikipedia's spirit of inquiry at all.--Primetime 02:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. One way or another, let's hope this doesn't catch on. Bucketsofg 03:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Weak Keep. Some of the reasons above for not merging make some sense. However wikipedia is not censored. If the decision is to merge into non-piercing body jewelry, then leaving this as a Redirect could be the best solution. Vegaswikian 06:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki to wiktionary. -ZeroTalk 20:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a redirect. FloNight talk 14:26, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare marketing

"This Wiki page was created for the students of Dr. Anthony Cox's Healthcare Marketing course at IUPUI"...WP:NOT a free webhost. I'm sure IUPUI has web space for students and professors.  RasputinAXP  c 20:33, 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 11:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

iFDG

It has been said that this is a Not Notable hobby group. Opinions? KPWM_Spotter 20:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted - currently on WP:DRV. W.marsh 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Taylor

It's a one-man hit piece on a non-notable individual. The meme of the moment is fun, but we hardly need character assassination pieces on Wikipedia, and other than the brief mention of the incident suitable for Trivia on the Tuttle, Oklahoma page, this man does not merit his own entry. Merge any appropriate contents into the Tuttle, Oklahoma piece and delete separate entry. — WCityMike (T | C) 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and do not merge into Tuttle, Oklahoma (indeed delete the info about Jerry in that article also.) This is a funny but unbelievably minor occurance (and yes, it is why I looked up the city) that just isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. It was broken by the Reg and then picked up as an 'oddly enough' piece by Slashdot (note the foot), Digg, Reddit et al. Nowhere else in the media. No lawsuit, FBI, nothing, just an obnoxious email exchange from a manager who got out the wrong side of the bed and doesn't understand computers. It's a funny story that will be forgotten within a week - no, ok, maybe a month. _If_ it develops into a significant lasting internet meme or "tuttled" gains traction I do of course retract this. In that case I think the incident should be recorded here (it was Jerry as a person that was involved in this) rather than on the Tuttle, Oklahoma page; it's an incident concerning Jerry, not the town. A single line in the town article referencing Jerry would then be enough (as with exploding whale, something that doesn't happen every day.) -- Blorg 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Speedy deleted. — WCityMike (T | C) 22:07, 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 Deleted per CSD A7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vargathrone

Non-notable band, exactly zero Google hits. Essentially no assertion of notability (on the fence, but I don't think the unsourceable list of songs counts), but attempts to speedy have failed (per the author's refusal to heed warnings not to remove A7 tags from his own pages; I was even nice enough to {{hangon}} for him...). I hate bringing it here, but... delete. --Kinu t/c 20:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ulvrangers is also repeatedly removing the AfD tags. Looks like we have a trouble maker... block recommended per vandalism on next such offense ASAP. --Kinu t/c 21:09, 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 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club noeth

looks like it fails WP:WEB-- Syrthiss 21:00, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The kingdom hearts 2 show

Delete as non-notable web show. It's also worth nothing that the creator of the Wiki page is Wwe4567, which is also the cited username of the show's creator on Youtube. —LrdChaos 21:07, 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. JIP | Talk 09:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InfoWorld joke programming languages

Was (were) previously nominated for deletion here. The result was no consensus/merge. I have merged them and believe it is now clear that this (these) article(s) should be deleted. —Ruud 21:09, 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 - {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Wall

Doesn't pass notability bar, acomplishments not notable. Hpuppet - «Talk» 21:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that if they wait a bit for the article to expand, it can be increasingly more accurate. Aimee Wall is an associate of Dr. Mel Levine, and is increasingly heading into fame. (The highest fame a Los Angles school teacher in a small private school can accomplish.) - «Talk» 21:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Wall is a real individual and the article has been cleaned up to comply with Wikipedia's standards

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 repost of a previously deleted article. Stifle 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahfor

Moving from prod as a courtesy to the reprodder. It was prodded both times as a non-notable website (see WP:WEB). It also failed AfD back in December, but since the article asserts growth since that time, I don't know if speedy is appropriate, and I can't view deleted articles anyway, to know if it's a substantial recreation. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:29, 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 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal death metal

nonnotable sub genre of death metal - genre-cruft; contents are covered by death metal. Delete Spearhead 21:29, 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 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason and Jeremy London

Delete - Jason London and Jeremy London each have their own article. Nothing on this page can be merged into the other articles, and I don't believe a redirect could be created either. Sweetie Petie 21:41, 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 {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas William Robbins

gibberish A2Kafir 21:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I think this is a Speedy delete, either under the criteria of a non-notable biography, an attack page (looking back in the revision list), or just patent nonsense. I added a speedy delete tag to it. --Elkman - (talk) 22:03, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math metal

what is this metalheads that are good at math? All sarcasm aside, just another bogus metal genre. delete Spearhead 21:13, 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 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto IV Soundtrack

There is no such thing as Grand Theft Auto "4". Fake. Unverifiable. Don Vito Corleone 21:51, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Texterity

Advertisement. Delete.Ken 22:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. Article was recreated soon after the previous deletion and has just now been noticed. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texterity

This is essentially an advertisment for the corporation. The user who created the article is an employee[37]. While the company may not be insignificant, Wikipedia isn't designed to provide free ads. Additionally, this page was created not long after the previous deletion above! -- Scientizzle 22:12, 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 slight merge and redirect to Bob Dylan, as per the last comment. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_people_compared_to_Bob_Dylan

Comparisons don't necessarily mean anything. Just because someone is compared to someone else, does not necessarily make them as good as that artist. Comparisons are even more pointless when it's with another great musician. Are we going to put an article comparing the Beatles to the Stones? No. They're both good, similar in some ways, different in others. Imagine if we compiled a list of musicians compared to the Beatles. That would be every post-1970 band in existence!Darkhawk 22:16, 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 Deleted per CSD A7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three 'o' clock victory

Non-notable ex-band, WP:Music violation - albums, singles, chart positions, tours, notable members. PROD removed without improving article or discussion as to same.  (aeropagitica)  22:17, 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 Keep  (aeropagitica)  06:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29

I get the feeling this might be an unpopular one, but I don't see anything notable about a particular given eclipse, that can't be summarised in the solar eclipse article itself. There's a nice gallery, which can go off to Commons, and the rest isn't worth keeping IMHO. Erath 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Because it happened recently and informs people who are interested in this particlar eclipse. beccus April 04, 2006 17:00 UTC
  • Keep!. Why not. It's a good page that summarizes something people may be interested in.
  • Delete. A year from now nobody will remember the exact date Dwp49423 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do it. It was significant.
  • Keep. Why not? It's something people will want to read about over the next few years.
  • Keep. Total solar eclispes only happen once every two years or less. It's notable in that respect.--Adam (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Total eclipses are rare and significant events. See NASA publication for the eclipse on 2006 March 29, it is 27 MB, contains many related information, not only a gallery. — Yaohua2000 22:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and Merge. Isn't there just a list of every time a total solar eclipse had happened/will happen? The individual articles will all read identical anyway, so just merge them into a list, and make that a "see also" on the Solar Eclipse entry. - Darkhawk (29 March 2006 @ 17:35 EST)
  • Merge. add this info to the List of solar eclipses article. - Christopher 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge There is nothing special about this eclipse. This is a classic case of recentism. joturner 22:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that just because it happened in 2006, more people want to read and write about it, but I think if we could write about all the eclipses that ever happened it would be a powerful resource. So I don't think there is anything wrong with "recentism". Donama 02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge per Joturner. MrMurph101 22:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge. Add to List of solar eclipses. Allemannster 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are unique events that don't happen every day. People who see them often remember them for their whole lives. As a reference work we should have articles on this type of thing. -- JJay 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of solar eclipses article. The eclipse is now a historical eclipse and its only claim to noteworthiness is that it is the most recent total eclipse. Apart from being an eclipse, it is not particularly noteworthy from an astronomical point of view because it was not particularly long or short nor had particular historical events associated with it. By comparison, the longest total solar eclipse of the 20th century, 1991 July 11, does not have a separate article. This eclipse was well studied because the path of totality passed over major observatories in Hawaii, USA. The same criteria should be applied to other eclipse articles that are not significant from an astronomical perspective. The article Solar eclipse on 1999 August 11 is only noteworthy because the line of totality passed over Europe, but in eclipse terms and from a global perspective the 1999 eclipse itself is not particularly noteworthy. Therefore the article Solar eclipse on 1999 August 11 should also be considered for deletion or merging for the same reasons as the article Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29.

--B.d.mills 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Whilst the moon passing in front of the sun is the same for every total eclipse, the path the eclipse follows, and which countries it visits, is unique. This, plus recording of the reactions of different cultures to the eclipse, is worth keeping.
  • Keep, for all of the reasons thus far presented. Some have noted that other prior eclipse do not have a dedicated article - therefore, neither should should this one [of 2006 March 29]. However, the problem with this argument is that Wikipedia is ever expanding. In fact, nothing is stopping anyone from creating a new article for the 11 July 1991 eclipse right now. And I think it would be a good idea to have a page charting all known eclipses - to which this one can be linked. Stephenw77 01:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a part of history (and a rare one if I might add). No reason what so ever not to keep this.
  • Keep. - Kubra 07:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has has been said many times, this isn't a paper encyclopedia; we could have one page for each solar eclipse, and I think there's enough notable information on each eclipse to justify doing so. -- Ch'marr 08:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article for every eclipse sounds like a good idea to me. They're all notable, and unique. If an article on one such eclipse doesn't contain enough unique information, that doesn't mean that it can't contain enough unique information. We don't delete stubs just because they're stubs... this is a wiki. Expansion is the way of the future. Fieari 08:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. i think we should merge this. dont really think its worth keeping that much craigosbourne 10:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that most total eclipses are worthy of an article. I'd like to see someone take on creating articles about other major ones. How that critera would be determined is a something that would have to be decided.Davidpdx 10:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have the space, and it's not harming anyone. Samy Merchi (Talk) 11:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Brian. --lightdarkness (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BD Mills G Clark 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability issues aside, there is certainly precident for elaborating on the details of a specific event outside of the primary article for the class of events. This is why the {{main}} template exists. -Harmil 16:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list that links to every solar eclipse article would be good, but instead of deleting this one as only one of a few articles on solar eclipses, how about starting to write articles on other solar eclipses. Stating that all of the articles will read the same is not a viable argument, because you could similarly argue that we shouldn't have articles on chemical elements because they would all be very similar. To someone interested in the data, the slight differences are important and significant.
  • Speedy Keep Article is of a notable news event, is linked to from the Main Page, and too large to merge.--Ted-m 17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article describes a significant event. --Barfoos 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Delete & Merge later Obviously from the number of comments, this is still a popular article. Plus, it is still on the Main Page. However, later I don't believe that many people will look up this specific solar eclipse. Zreeon 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spiffy sperry Kirbytime 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In future, any number of topics and issues (such as folklore, social movements) etc might be related to that event. IMHO, unless articles are rubbish, and assuming Wikipedia's servers aren't running out of electrons, deletions should be very rare. I found the article interesting and intend to link to it on my own site (and I'm not an astronomer). Alpheus 04:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an event that deserves an article. Tristanb 04:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All total eclipses are rare and significant enough to be notable. The only sense in which this is "recentism" is that events that have occured since Wikipedia was begun are able to have more data included since data is more readily available while the event is taking place and shortly thereafter. (see also articles on recent olympics as opposed to earlier olympics). If more data can be found on previous total eclipses, those eclipses should also have articles written based on that data. Tyler 06:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is strange to call this "recentism" as the article has been there since April 8, 2005. Maybe "futurism"? LambiamTalk 11:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Kids and students may need to write some paper about this particular eclipse, especially if they live in the mentioned countries. And what if something happens, such as a colective suicide, and is later related to this event? It wouldn't be the first time such thing happens. I don't understand this deletion fury of some. Lets make Wikipedia the most complete encyclopedia ever. Pedro.Guero 16:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a significant event which happened recently. Mdwav 1:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC+8)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwikied already. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caput

Dicdef that can't possibly grow into an article we don't already have. Daniel Case 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be useful for the people to know that caput exists both as bone/body part and as a disease. It serves as a redirection, just like the CNS --www.doc 22:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the disambiguation as a footnote, I hope it's alright now--www.doc 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right idea with the transwiki link. I'm going to suggest that's what you do ... take all those entries to the Wiktionary entry for caput. It is not a disambiguation page, and can't be, since it links to no other articles named "Caput." Thus it's really not encyclopedic, nor is it likely to be, and thus wiktionary is the best place for it. I will add the appropriate tag. Daniel Case 02:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. Thanks for the help with the tagging.
I know, I've already transfered it there.--www.doc 22:10, 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 all. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The page Unenrolled now redirects to Unenrolled voter. The material at Unenrolled voter is substantially different from the original article for which this AfD was made. As a result, another AfD should be proposed if deletion is warranted for the new article. --HappyCamper 14:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unenrolled, Party Government, Political commentary

Political advocacy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Daniel Case 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERY WELL, I THOUGHT THAT VERY MUCH WAS THE PHILOSAPHY FOR UNENROLLED VOTERS. I WAS AIMING TO GIVE THIER PHILOSOPHY NOT A SOAPBOX. IF YOU CAN BETTER GIVE UNENROLLED PHILOSAPHY PLEASE DO IT OR HAVE ME REWRITE IT, BUT DO NOT DELETE IT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinus (talk • contribs)

Then what I suggest you do is work on the existing Independent (voter) article, which certainly needs it at the moment. I think I'll put a merge tag on this one. Daniel Case 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After the bundling Delete All. No way to salvage an acceptable article out of any of these. Fan1967 03:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Daniel Case 03:30, 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 Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Matthews

I'm listing this here rather than on {{prod}} because a similarly-titled article (Scott Mathews) is currently on AFD, and I wanted to minimize confusion. This Scott Mattews is a different musician than that, and to the best of my knowledge, he's also a different guy than the genuinely notable drummer for The Derailers. This Scott Matthews is a non-notable singer/songwriter with one album that hasn't been released yet. Googling his name and that of the album turns up only ~15 google hits, and he doesn't have an Allmusic page. We don't have an article on his label (San Remo Records), and a google search for them turned up 74 pages, most of which were either irrelevant or mirrors. Colin Kimbrell 22:48, 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 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dice City

Cruft game mod--Zxcvbnm 23:07, 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 speedily deleted as copy-paste copyvio by ESkog. Proto||type 10:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yumbel

this is not in english. Maybe this should be transwikied? Where (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Translate and keep a not English tag has been placed. Let someone translate it into English.--Adam (talk) 23:16, 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 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pageant Beauties

Non notable website. Prod removed without an edit summary. --Rory096 23:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with my site? First of all, you don't need a domain name to have a website. At least, I did have one, TBC! Second of all, I saw all of your username pages: Zoe, Rory 096, TBC, and Daniel and I think your pages are bader than mines. I have a right to post my entry here, just like all 4 of you's. I will updated it soon, so it could meet, ur... "Wikipedia Standards." Also I don't know what your doing because, Zoe you are so mean. You deleted 2 of my pages. If you even what to delete this entry, I would have to delete your's and talk with Wikipedia. Same goes for Rory096, Daniel, TBC, and Wiki... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam72991 (talk • contribs)

Do not make threats. You have also blanked your own talk page to remove the vandalism warnings since you received notice that one more instance of vandalism would get you blocked. Daniel Case 05:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to do what you wish with your userpage, as the editors above have. This deals with the creation of arcticles, which appear in the search engine. T K E 07:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not threating you. I'm just saying, your userpage is also advertistment of yourself and I don't delete it. Thanks Simon for letting us see your interesting username page. Anyway, yes I will put press releases about Pageant Beauties so it won't violate the Wikipedia Policy.

Comment. User pages are not article space. --Rory096 05:09, 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 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coism

Delete. Google search brings zero hits, author admits subject is obscure and without sources. wikipediatrix 23:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't know what to think of this article. While it fails verification, notability is nill but not being a paper encyclopdia it could stand with verification to me. Since the author is willing to let it go, it's a coin toss. I'm waiting to see if anything else happens with it. TKE 00:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. A religion supposedly developed and spread through the internet that doesn't Google? I don't think so. Sounds like something made up in school. Fan1967 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources and likely hoax --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Gazpacho 03:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I am the author, and a Coist. You can accept or reject my word according to your judgement, but I hope you don't dismiss every obscure article as a 'hoax'; Coism is not a schoolboy 'fad' (I am, regrettably, no longer that young,) just because it was conceived recently by a small number of people (as, throughout history, all religions were, according to Atheists). To clarify, however, the principle of Coism was conceived by a small group of us who became acquainted via the internet, rather than invented in a chat-room. If you consider it too obscure to warrant an article, fair enough, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a 'definitive' collection of all human knowledge. I think it is not that Coism is too spurious a subject to warrant an article, rather that not enough other equally obscure subjects have articles as well. There may only be a handful of us, but are there no diseases with far fewer sufferers that are listed on Wikipedia? Furthermore, does Wikipedia have a 'maximum' capacity for knowledge? And what is the threshold of 'obscureness' that must be passed to warrant an article? Mjefm 16:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 16:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three questions: 1. Where did the information in this article come from? 2. How can you prove that this whole thing isn't something you just made up? 3. Have you read Wikipedia guidelines on what constitutes a notable subject for inclusion? wikipediatrix 18:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "If you consider it too obscure to warrant an article, fair enough..." That is correct. "...but Wikipedia is supposed to be a 'definitive' collection of all human knowledge." I don't know where you got that idea. Wikipedia does not want to be an indiscriminate repository of everything under the sun. The standards are basically that, in order to be covered in Wikipedia, something must be notable and verifiable. We have at least half a dozen new religions or belief systems a month, some spurious but many sincere, and most known to at best a few dozen people. The sincerity of your beliefs is not an issue. What is an issue is whether there are any significant number of people who follow, or have even heard of, this belief. It seems quite clear that, at this time, the answer to that is no. If at some point this belief should spread and actually become notable, it can, at that time, be legitimately covered here. Fan1967 18:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provide a citation that the religion exists and has been recognized by other people, and we may keep it. Gazpacho 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely it would be good to keep this kind of article - even if the movement never has more than a handful of members, it's worth preserving this article for historical reasons. DH, --203.111.66.236 08:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has to prove first that it really exists and is not a hoax. Not much chance of that with zero Google hits. wikipediatrix 20:14, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with ADHD

An obscure target of vandalism, List of people with ADHD is not only not notable, but consists of six uncited and most likely unverifiable statements, and a (hidden) message that any more uncited examples will be considered, and reverted as, vandalism.


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

If you came here looking for the November 2012 AFD of this article, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisgender (2nd nomination).

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender

Definition plus etymology plus examples of usage still equals a dictionary definition. It's also a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 00:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Keep. Yes it is a neologism, but one that is referenced by dozens of other articles (see what links to it), and one that has meaning within an small academic community. I don't see what is hurt by keeping it, and I can see many articles that would be hurt by not being linked to it. There is a fuzzy line between neologisms and legitimate accepted terms in new fields of study. It is not a black and white distinction. If anything, we have to draw that line closer to neologisms and allow some of the better examples. This is one such case. I never heard of this term until I saw it referenced somewhere else, and I learned something from reading the article. Is that a bad thing? -- Samuel Wantman 06:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No results for "cisgender" in any academic database I searched. The best I could get was one hit on google scholar in an unpublished paper which cites no source for the term and admits that it is not in wide use. Very low number of google hits ~800 inculding wikipedia, ~650 w/o). Article has no real sources. kotepho 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may find the results for "cisgendered to be more interesting. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With this great revelation I have come up with...zero results. Oops :( kotepho 21:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sources for its significance. The sources in the article are eerly similar to each other to the point that they were all written by the same person or copyvios of each other. Oh, and they aren't WP:RS either. kotepho 21:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact alone that it is linked from several articles should make it clear that it is important to keep it. Also, I wonder what "academic databases" were searched that turned up no hits. -- AlexR 21:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PyschARTICLES, PyschINFO, PubMed, Duke University Press, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Contempory Women's Issues along with searches of periodical databases such as NewsBank's American Newspapers, Factiva, InfoTrac, SIRS, LexisNexis. kotepho 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A useful term that is actually reasonably widespread among this field; I can try to find more published uses, but a quick google revealed its use in this book (Medical Therapy and Health Maintenance for Transgender Men: A Guide For Health Care Providers, by R. Nick Gorton MD, Jamie Buth MD, Dean Spade JD), in addition to a reference found in google scholar (not sure if it's the same one referred to above, but this one has been published): Debating Trans Inclusion in the Feminist Movement: A Trans-Positive Analysis (by Eli R. Green), in: "Challenging Lesbian Norms: Intersex, Transgender, Intersectional, and Queer Perspectives", Edited by Angela Pattatucci-Aragón, PhD Director, Center for Evaluation and Sociomedical Research, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan. Perhaps those keen on deleting pages that define specialised terms and lack references can turn their attention to Category:Cooking techniques — none of these terms (e.g. Sautéing, basting) have cited references from academic publications as far as I can tell. ntennis 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think basting is a neologism... nevermind. That is the same paper from google scholar though, I was incorrect that it was not published (the version I read stated it was yet to be published). The Journal of Lesbian Studies is at least described as peer-revied by others. The book seems to be unpublished as far as I can tell. It is a book that is released under GFDL and googling for the ISBN comes up nothing. This is still a far way from demostrating that it has significant use. I'm changing my vote to Transwiki though. kotepho 01:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you are hard to please :P I will have a look for other published sources from the real world of actual paper and ink. In the meantime, the use of the term and its meaning is easily verifiable online. And no, I don't think basting is a neologism. What gave you that idea? ntennis 02:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is from the top of the WINAD page: "Nearly everyone here agrees that in general, stub articles are to be encouraged, provided they meet certain criteria. There are likewise some differences of opinion as to whether just definitions are acceptable for beginning an article. If you want to make everybody happy, add a little encyclopedic information of some sort —don't just give the meanings of the word." It seems to me that this article already has encyclopedic information in talking about the social and political context in which the word emerged, who uses it and why. It would fail to meet this policy if it only consisted of the lead section. The article could certainly be improved though; perhaps you would like to help? ntennis 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seems to be WP:OR given the lack of sources. kotepho 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it were WP:OR, it would have been created by the authors. We didn't create it, it's a part of our understanding. I'm sorry if the word isn't used often enoguh fo it to pass your filter, but it certainly passes WP:WINAD and WP:KIT. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read WP:OR? Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. It hasn't been published. It is original research. kotepho 19:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can interpret this two ways. I've always read it to mean that "material added to articles authored by Wikipedia editors that has not been published in a book, journal or on the web already..." rather than "material from any source added to articles that has not been published in a book or journal..." If it is the second case, all of my work on List of largest suspension bridges is original research because all of my sources were from the web. It is, as far as I know more up to date than anything to be found on paper. -- Samuel Wantman 01:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is my interpretatoin as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just reporting back, I couldn't find any other published uses of the word. i guess it is mainly confined to less formal forums like personal websites and discussion lists. ntennis 14:15, 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 12:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin_Element

Sounds like made-up nonsense, no references, no Google relevant hits Gu 09:01, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_29&oldid=1081096685"