Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AndyZ 21:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fake that Dmitry Kuzmin is famous russian poet. I recommend you delete this article. He isn't well-known in Russia and his poems have specific characteristic. Nevermind2 00:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The only edits the nominator has made are to AfD articles having to do with gay culture. I believe this is a seriously bad faith nom. IrishGuy 00:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So make simple test. Start google, type '"Dmitry Vladimirovich Kuzmin"' and push enter. How many links do you see? One link! No words. Nevermind2 00:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. I'm new user in EnWiki, but I'm known in RuWiki as Nevermind. See my contribution list here. Nevermind2 00:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• re Irishguy, see AfD New Queer Cinema Tyrenius 02:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year for 2004, he won an award for services to Russian literature. A Google search for him comes up with 1,360 hits and a Russian search would no doubt come up with more see [1]. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You are mistaken. As Dmitry Kuzmin are known different famouse Russians not only poet Dmitry Vladimirovich Kuzmin. Nevermind2 01:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a mistake. I believe you are systematically going after gay culture articles. The subject of this article happens to be a gay poet. He also happens to be notable. Therefore it should stay. IrishGuy 01:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay culture is neutral subject for me but this person is not famous in Russia. That's all what I can say. You solve. Nevermind2 01:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I trust Capitalistroadster's assessment. Besides, Google seems to show a decent number of references, such as this one. If it's a hoax, then it's a stunningly well-crafted one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I too trust Capitalistroadster's judgement. To me, your argument seems unsubstantiated in light of evidence uncovered. Bill (who is cool!) - 01:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There certainly is a poet of that name on google. However, I would like to see more references in the article. Tyrenius 01:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if he appears in a Britannica edition, he must be notable enough for Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per all above. Seems as though he is a notable poet in Russia. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't pay attention to this guy, that's only New Homophobic Wave in Russian wiki and nothing more :) --AndyVolykhov 05:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You are liar, mr AndyVolykhov. You vote "keep" always even LGBT-article is bad, original research, POV, etc. Is that New Homophobic Wave? I think no. Nevermind2 19:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, nothin' but WP:POINT. MaxSem 06:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 06:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If he's not well-known in Russia, why the hell does he have an article on the Russian Wikipedia? Get that deleted before you come here. — Haeleth Talk 08:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He tried that) MaxSem 08:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. But you stopped voting by using your admin power. I'm correct? I'll try also to remove this article in RuWiki Nevermind2 19:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That's called "early close per overwhelming consensus". MaxSem 22:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Less one day (holiday!) and 8 "keep" is the consensus? You are wrong, MaxSem. As you know today another admin has listed this article for deletion again. Gj! Nevermind2 17:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that's called in the Russian wiki but here that's known as snowballing. JoshuaZ 00:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is powerful LGBT-lobby in RuWiki and these guys block removing :-| Nevermind2 19:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small piece of advice: even if you think there is a lobby/cabal/conspiracy somewhere telling users that rarely if ever helps your credibility. In most cases, it damages it. JoshuaZ 00:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true in order case. But isn't in that. Firstly, Dmitry Kuzmin is administrator of RuWiki, see here. Secondly, admin MaxSem stopped voting in less than no time. Why? I don't know. Nevermind2 18:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:BIO.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks like a bad faith nom to me. --Tango 18:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ignoring all of the above, I think that if he is a poet that has been published in a professional fashion that his article should be allowed to remain on the Wiki.-Eyaw Nayr 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Yes, I trust Cap[italistroadster's counts, but that is way fewer ghits than I get, and I am not in any way notable. Just zis Guy you know? 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Eyaw Nayr. Seems arguably notable. Also, I don't like rewarding bad faith nominations. If anothe editor wants to nominate it again in a month, I'll consider deleting it then. JoshuaZ 21:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. Arbusto 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, we had a large discussion about deleting of this article in ru: ([2]) and most voted for keep. MaxiMaxiMax 16:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is for a former webcomic that is now a video game in development. It was proded last month, but the tag was removed wth the comment "de-prod; mentioned on IGN and GameSpy". You'll find that here as well as a few other places on IGN's network, but IGN's stats suggest it's very low profile. Here is Variant's official description; otherwise, there's not much information and the game's release date has been TBA since this article's creation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As far as its original existence as webcomic is concerned, it doesn't appear to be verifiable. I can't even find it anywhere. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete - I was going to AFD this sooner or later, but have not had much time. I also have Variant Interactive on my watchlist pending deletion, that's a publishing company behind this which have so far published absolutely nothing. - Hahnchen 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I prodded it and hadn't noticed that it was deprodded (my mistake!). It seems that the mentions in IGN and GameSpy indicate that there are no articles, no reviews, no news, and no sources for this information, so it's unverified (and probably unverifiable too). Ziggurat 00:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:WEB for reasons above. -- Dragonfiend 01:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 02:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with all above -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 06:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello, I'm the creator of Mythos -- a young man in a youth group I mentor pointed this out to me. The webcomic has been taken offline in preparation for the new one to appear, ideally later this year. The game is TBA, pending some internal negotiations with hardware manufacturers, but is in production. Understandably, Wikipedia is not for advertising so if because of the game this entry needs to be deleted for now I can see that, though I hope it can be reinstated in the future. --Cwboyer 14:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the main issue here is that this article does not meet the policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. For information on inclusion standards more specific to webcomics, see Wikipedia:Notability (web). Briefly, in order for wikipedia to be useful it must be reliable, and it does not appear that this webcomic is one that has been covered by reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Comics Journal, Wired, etc. -- Dragonfiend 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does look likely that it will be deleted for now, as we try not to have articles that don't have a good deal of proof. The criteria of proof for webcomics is pretty high, but when you get the game released and reviewed / commented upon, an article on it will be most welcome. Regards, Ziggurat 21:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The JPS ^{talk to me} 00:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable. Probably a hoax person. The text of the article is uttertly incoherent. No relevant hits in Google. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As nominator. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - utter nonsense. Fabricationary 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as Wikipedia:Complete bollocks —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 00:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added {{nn-bio}} tag. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Ezeu 16:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already nominated above. Same page about Nashville franklin leslie only nickname is used here. Considering speedying. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 00:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While "Buckskin" Frank Leslie is indeed a notable gunfighter, the present article is directly copied from [3] MadMax 00:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per Wavegetarian Bucketsofg✐ 01:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if it is a notable gunfighter, the article can stay. But it is a blatant copy/paste, as shown by MadMax. Should't it be tagged as copyvio instead? -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CSD A8, copyvio as aptly noted by MadMax. Tagged as such. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, A8. --Terence Ong 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think this classifies as a speedy candidate; the website is a fan page. Delete as copyvio. - Mike Rosoft 07:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Samir and Terence Ong. DarthVader 09:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily userfy to user:Thobias vakayil. Just zis Guy you know? 21:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodded without comment. A family history of some people, who haven't asserted to be notable, contains some interesting stuff way back to the BC era, but it is unsourced and could possibly be aggrandizement. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pure vanity: We can not include all details of our family members here. -- ReyBrujo 02:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "unreferenced and unverifiable random family history" pretty much covers it. Eldereft 03:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-admitted vanity article. JIP | Talk 07:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First para copyvio from [4]. Next one copied and pasted from Nedumpally#Conversion_of_Nedumpally_Brahmins. Third para from [5]. The last three lines about the family are probably author's original work. Google doesn't know who Vayakil Chakku is. utcursch | talk 07:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. --Tango 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Bachrach44 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily userfied to User:Wrajradio Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod removed without comment. This person is the director of an online radio station with alexa rank of 1.6 million and is not notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Probably vanity; clearly fails WP:BIO Bucketsofg✐ 01:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, it seems the radio gets between 10,000 and 20,000 hits, but this individual together with the radio (WRAJ Zaragoza) gets only 8. -- ReyBrujo 02:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't quite meet notability standards yet -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 08:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. DarthVader 09:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. I would say merge with the article on the radio station, but it seems we don't have one. If the station isn't worthy of an article, the director definately isn't. --Tango 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per above.. Kr0nnik 20:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable drinking game, 11 google hits, 3 hits for Frizbeer game. Accurizer 00:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cult game, there aren't going to be websites about it or companies selling frizbeer equipment--Plokloon 00:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Surely an article for which not-something-thought-up-in-school-one-afternoon was meant. Bucketsofg✐ 01:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, made up stuff. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete.This game sound way more legitimate than other drinking games found on this very server such as Buffulo and Bizu-Bizu. For people in favor of deletion, I'd like you to please explain what makes this game any less valid than those stupid memory games that no one likes. Also, if you dont think this game is cool than youlikely arent cool' ...so once again i'd like you to look inside yourself and realize that you spend your time looking around wikipedia giving opinions on matters you are completly ignorant to...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.205.119 (talk • contribs) .

How can it be made up if there is an extensive list of rules and how to play? And there are common variations to the game? Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's "Made up stuff."--Plokloon 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the fact that you doubters are unfamiliar with frizbeer, and I would venture to say you are older than the targeted age for this game. It's popularity is growing exponentially and there is no reason it should not be permitted on Wikipedia. Does this need to be a "household" drinking game before it earns a spot on Wikipedia, or can this up and coming game continue to spread in popularity with the aid of Wikipedia? Give it a chance before you judge.--Elrez 02:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Elrez comment is frightening. Wikipedia should not make something notable, it should already be notable enough to be included here. -- ReyBrujo 02:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not frightening. Elrez, why your comment appears to have given ReBrujo white hair is because Wikipedia is not intended to be several things, among them a "publisger of original thought or original inventions", or a "soapbox or vehicle for advertising". By stating that you wish to spread the popularity of this game via Wikipedia is a violation of both of these, which are part of the "What Wikipedia Is Not" policy. If it can be proven that externally verifiable information concering this game can be provided through the use of what the Wikipedia community considers to be reliable, third-party sources (such as magazine article, newspaper reviews, or any published material that has been written by an objective professional with no connection to the game or its creators (ie an external observer), then it will no longer violate the "What Wikipedia Is Not" policy and will stand a greater chance of inclusion. Unfortunately, at this time, that isn't the case. Good luck spreading the game, and hopefully we'll see you back here in the future, but to put it bluntly: "You become notable, then you get on Wikipedia:. -- Saberwyn 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would like to see the "externally verifiable" info concerning the site for the drinking game who shit...[[6]]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.205.119 (talk • contribs) .
  • If you don't think it meets Wikipedia's inclusion policies, nominate it for deletion, where it will be considered in a similar discussion, on its own merits. -- Saberwyn 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable drinking game. JIP | Talk 07:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't even need to look at the article: whenever someone votes "Do Not Delete", or someone says "give it a chance before you judge", or someone says "let this up-and-coming thing continue to spread", the article is certain to be worthless. — Haeleth Talk 08:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, above comments make it clear that this is not notable. —Stormie 10:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the lack of Google hits and notoriety are enough to delete this, but everyone's ocmments above just seal the deal. -- Kicking222 16:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete Why aren't all of you on the Buffalo Wikipedia site complaining about that. There is no difference between this page and other drinking games' pages. It's almost impossible to get a source on this game, are we supposed to look in the local newspaper and go under the drinking section? Just because it hasn't been documented doesn't mean that it hasn't had a strong effect on the social scene. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.179.127.106 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete nn; I'm with User:Haeleth all the way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverified. If you can find a reliable source that mentions this game, then add a reference to the article and I'll reconsider my vote. If you think other pages should be deleted, then by all means add them to WP:AFD (instructions are on that page) and we'll consider them. --Tango 19:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE! go outside and play this game for yourself. this is a great game, with exceptional morals, and life long friends will be made while playing this game. Plus, all of the people that are against this game obviously are in need of both friends and fun. p.s. dear Accurizer and all of the other posters that are complaining of lack of popularity; you obviously haven't got many friends, and are not in with "the crowd" because this game is widely popular, and will soon be played around the world. dont you want this on Wikipedia? it is a craze that is already happening. in fact i heard that someone is writing a novel on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.194.84 (talk • contribs)

Please give me a link to the policy that states "It's fun" as a reason to have an article on something. If it does become played around the world, or someone does write a novel on it, then maybe we can have an article on it then, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Tango 20:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo drinking game scores 1.7m ghits to the <300 for Frizbeer. Just zis Guy you know? 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --TorriTorri 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's been a long time since "vote against me and you're not cool" has worked on me. --Bachrach44 19:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Violation of WP:NOT Kirbytime 20:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wikipedia is not a soapbox. Kr0nnik 21:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all drinking games whose popularity is "growing exponentially". Exponential growth is impossible for an established and notable game. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • DONT: I think you guys are getting caught up in the name frisbeer not being on google, this game does exist and is very popular it has many variations though...search frisbee drinking game on google you'll get 1.4million hits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.205.119 (talk • contribs) .
• Strong Delete It's not notable! All you "don't delete it 'cause it's totally fun" commenters--go make a website of your own about Frizbeer. Come back and create a new article (after this one is inevitably deleted) when Frizbeer has garnered verifiable attention by reliable sources so that it meets Wikipedia:Notability. Sheesh. In the meantime, tag all those other drinking games that "don't deserve" articles for deletion. -- Scientizzle 18:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Have you ever drank beer before i suggest you crack one and relax...games make drinking more fun, im not trying to get other games off this site im just trying to say it looks like this one fits in with the rest of those stupid games... obviously the drinking games catergory isn't exactly the most serious catergory on wikipedia. so until you start policing the other games you cant say a game like Who Shit is any more valid than this one —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.205.119 (talk • contribs) .

You're getting very close to violating WP:CIVIL. Please don't make personal comments. If you want the article to stay, by all means defend it, but comments about the individuals voting against it are not acceptable. --Tango 19:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched "frisbee drinking games" on Google and came across more than a dozen games that have rules either identical or undeniably similar to those listed on this page. I think it is the word 'Frizbeer' that is getting everyone so uptight. Chances are that when the "houston skyline" was listed on wikipedia, the actual name was not as popular but I sure as hell bet the drink combination was wildly popular.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Latani6 (talk • contribs) .

This article is an informative article explaining to people how to play a very fun and popular drinking game. Drinking games are like ancient oral history; you're not going to find out how to play them in the newspaper, but from friends and family. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, which allows anyone to get better acquainted with the world they live in. What separates Wikipedia from other encyclopedias is that it allows anyone to edit it, which in turn allows people to learn more about local histories than ever before. There are no pranks or jokes in this article, by deleting this article all that is happening is people are not being updated on the current social situation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plokloon (talk • contribs) .

It would be nice if it worked like that, but we can't allow people to just add anything if there's no way to verify it. We can't just take your word for it, we need concrete evidence. Otherwise we'd end up with more hoax articles than real ones. It's not ideal, but that's the way things are. If you can't provide verification, the article has to go. If there is evidence of it under a different name, prehaps you should request that the article be moved instead, but it's not going to be kept under the current name. --Tango 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tango, I understand where you're coming from, but where's the plausability of this being a hoax? It's obviously a drinking game that has affected many people, and there is no profanity or anything comical about this article.--Plokloon 01:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete!...I have played this game and it rules. For all you people that think it doesn't exist, don't be losers and try to delete this entry, instead go play it for yourself and you will see how fun it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.42.181 (talk • contribs) .

I recently played frizbeer for the first time, and not only is it a fun game but its hard. You'd think it'd be easy to hit a pole with a frisbee, but it's not. I hope this article doesnt get deleted, more people should be playing this game. San Dimas High School Football Rules!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.205.20 (talk • contribs) .

It's not "obviously" anything. All we have is your word. We need a reliable source. --Tango 12:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as obviously nonnotable vanity, WP:SNOW. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I have to waste AfD's time with this, but this is a completely non notable method of rolling joints (and I would know; I created Methods of smoking cannabis) and complete potcruft. Prod removed without comment. Rory096 01:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I bow to Rory's expertise in this, umm, matter. (Likely vanity, anyway). Bucketsofg✐ 01:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as it provides only context and vanity, not content.—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 01:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Rory's apology accepted. Paul 01:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can never be a stable article, will require regular updating and is already out of date. Night Gyr 01:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn, per discussion below. Night Gyr 20:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep It's not out of date as it goes up to December 2006. I can't see any reason to delete this, as it's very valuable and useful information for those interested in such things. Tyrenius 02:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are already resources for the interested, such as [7], and meta:Wiki is not paper has a section on timeliness that states that it's inappropriate to write article that will turn out of date quickly. We'll need someone to update this article every time a launch passes or date changes, and that's not happening. Night Gyr 02:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the list is ordered and clean. Although the list will continuously grow, so is the List of anime characters, List of South_Park episodes, etc, etc. Although I agree that there needs to be more people working on the article. -- ReyBrujo 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those lists are not analogous. The analogous lists would be List of planned anime characters and List of scheduled South Park episodes. I observe without surprise that neither exists, nor should either exist. — Haeleth Talk 09:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ReyBrujo. In addition, this is a list collating numerous encyclopedic events, which have been externally verified. -- Saberwyn 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (Slight change and wordy explanation why later in discussion)[reply]
  • However, it's supposed to be pruned, so I don't htink it should exist in its current form. Are we going to move this to list of rocket launches and count launches that have already occurred? Night Gyr 04:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's only one that's occurred - all the rest are in the future. 2006, yes? However, I hope the information of launched rockets is being preserved somewhere. Tyrenius 04:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's numerous lists in Category:Space lists that can be used for these purposes. -- Saberwyn 09:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I must admit that Night Gyr raises a good argument. The table in the article is very succinct and provides useful information, but really needs to be updated with launches occurring moving to some article on launched rockets. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, the list is an encyclopaedic list which is useful and summarises events. The article needs to be updated frequently. --Terence Ong 07:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks useful. JIP | Talk 07:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, and this list is nothing else.
  Look, this is great and valuable information, sure. But it's not encyclopedia material. Encyclopedias are for writing about events, not for listing events that may (if they ever happen) be worth writing about. Wikipedia is not a year planner. What next? List of future Rolling Stones comeback tours? List of films expected to be nominated for Academy Awards? Tomorrow's weather? — Haeleth Talk 09:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article A Bigger Bang Tour had been started in early 2005, with reliable sources, it would have been kept, or at least merged into the Rolling Stones article (This is still future events anyway, as the tour will not conclude for another four months. "Predicted Academy Awards nominations" would be (form where I see it) deleted as original research. I'm not even going to try and defend "Tomorrow's weather" as an article, as that would be a maintenance nightmare. Also, from the WP:NOT policy section on crystal ballism "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.". We have organisations that know what they are doing (at least in the case of NASA and the ESA, I truly hope so), saying that "We will launch this vehicle into Earth orbit, to perform this role, on this date". It is never going to be the case of *insert national leader here* waking up and ringing *insert national space agency here* one morning and saying "By tomorrow night, I want a rocket in space". These missions take time to plan and establish, and they leave a paper trail that can be used to reliably sourced this list. That's "certain". As for "notable", I don't know about you, but I personally think trying to put things such as environmental observation equipment, scientific projects, global communication transfer stations, and people into a location removed from the Earth's atmosphere is, if not notable, pretty damned significant. -- Saberwyn 09:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. To be honest, I'm not sure of the policies in regards to this matter. I feel that this list is encyclopaedic, and I myself find it extremely useful. DarthVader 09:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The list is useful as a resource and as information to those who may wish to observe it. The dates may change, that is why the {{future}} tag is at the top of the page.

When I created the article, I cross referenced all information with the space agencies websites, and the SpaceFlightNow website. These only go up to the end of the year, and thus, so does this article. Seeing as rocket launches are not as common as, for example, aircraft taking off, your prospective rocket-spotter is more likley to need such a resource, as it is no good turning up at a launch site on the offchance there may be a launch today, as odds are there won't be. --GW_Simulations 18:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Maybe this would make more sense on wikinews? JoshuaZ 21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also feel a transwiki'ing might be the best option, though where to...? Wikinews? Wikibooks? Grutness...wha? 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I wouldn't have as much objection to it if we set some criteria like "list of orbital spaceflights" and then made yearly lists for those from 1957-2006, or possibly by decade if there aren't enough to justify individual years. The problem with it as it is now is that it makes explicit reference to the fact that its events must be in the future, so it will become out of date without regular updating. A list by years can simply state the date and at the end of the year we can move on to the next one. Night Gyr 01:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like that a lot, and a list of all orbital flights would be useful. JoshuaZ 01:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is that the same as a list of all rocket launches? (for the non-astronomically inclined) Tyrenius 02:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, all 'serious' rocket launchers exit the atmosphere (i'd avoid making the criteria "orbital flights", as if something goes further than Earth Orbit, ie probes to other planets, future moon landings, they won;t be covered) If someone is willing to convert this to a List of extra-atmospheric vehicle launches (2006-2010) or somehting, I will support it. But, I would rather see this information kept and conveted. Under no circumstances is this to be interpreted as a deletion, if the conversion does not go ahead. -- Saberwyn 07:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree in principal to a limiting factor, and I would say that leaving the atmosphere would be a good condition. This will pick up all major orbital, sub-orbital, and planetry missions. --GW_Simulations 18:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why not just "List of spaceflights" then, since spaceflight is basically synonymous with leaving the atmosphere. Night Gyr 21:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine by me. I would prefer to leave scheduled ones seperate from past ones though. --GW_Simulations 21:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band; no entry on Allmusic; doesn't even claim notability Paul 01:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only thing I can find on these people is a Myspace page, and that hardly makes you noteworthy. - Bill (who is cool!) 01:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete till they do something. Tyrenius 02:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. -- ReyBrujo 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Wow, they should probably pick a new name. — GT 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NMG is not met. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. —Stormie 10:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 13:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being found on MySpace is reason enough - can we add that to CSD? ;) --Tango 19:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Jruffatto 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Arbusto 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. I am sufficiently convinced it was an article about a person who had a website rather than about the website; and without demonstrating the notability of the website, the person is not notable, even though websites themselves aren't speediable. Not sure if it needed to be relisted either; both participants wrote a bit, all in favour of deletion. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Website without claim to notability. 830 hits on Google. ~MDD4696 23:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.. Even more weirdly, the website is about Joe but not by Joe, and it appears he doesn't even know about it. I don't imagine he'll be super pleased if he finds out. QUOTE: "He shows a particular interest to the aesthetics of his property, as he is commonly seen watering and raking his lawn, cleaning up his yard, and washing his car." This would not be encyclopedia information if about Napoleon, let alone some old dude in Toronto. Sadly I think we must consign Joe to the sad, lonely anonymity of his random, pointless life and no-doubt-imminent death and decomposition. Herostratus 21:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as article with no assertion of the notability of its subject. Brian G. Crawford 01:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn per nom; I certainly hope it's a fake. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, mon. Outriggr 01:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's an intrusion of his privacy and therefore not permitted by wiki. Tyrenius 02:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD:A7, utterly fails WP:BIO and WP:WEB. -- ReyBrujo 03:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge. --Ezeu 08:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:FICT. Merge the content into Fear Street. RicDod 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. and in accordance with WP:FICT (e.g. notability). Also clean and wikify. Eldereft 02:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. -- ReyBrujo 03:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above, pending brilliant prose of more than a few paragraphs. Also, why was a AfD raised to ask about merging? Andjam 08:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as things stand. It would be possible to convince me to change my mind, but not easy. Runcorn 10:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy. Sango123 (e) 18:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created by user 'WebBoulevard," showing that this is self-promotion. It's also not notable. In short, it's advertising. Gadren 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• userfy to webboulevard's userpage M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. Tyrenius 02:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per nom. -- ReyBrujo 03:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per nom. DarthVader 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per nom. Computerjoe's talk 17:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per nom. --Tango 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. doesn't meet WP:CORP --Bachrach44 19:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per nom. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - can't see that deletion is necessary. Runcorn 10:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Ezeu 06:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page/person is non-notable other than a claim that she slept with David Beckham, all the information on this page (which is basically one sentence) is covered in depth on the Beckham page. I higly doubt anyone will come to wikipedia, search for her name and discover that she claims to have bedded Beckham. I vote delete as the information is contained in the Beckham article. Batman2005 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect Pete.Hurd 05:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Tyrenius 02:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. -- ReyBrujo 03:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Metamagician3000 12:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect --Terence Ong 14:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. No need for a redirect since everyone will first do a search on Beckham if interested in this issue. -- P199 19:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need to redirect. --Tango 19:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per P199. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. User P199 is not necessarily correct. Someone who wanted to know Sarah Marbeck's claim to fame might search "Sarah Marbeck". Redirects are cheap. AndyJones 12:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Do you actually think anyone will ever actually search for Sarah Marbeck? Batman2005 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly. Either she's significant enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia, in which case someone might search for her, or she isn't, in which case she should be removed from the Beckham article. AndyJones 20:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point AndyJones. My favorite part about her article is that it's NEVER been edited since it was created. Batman2005 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone would do a search for Sarah Marbeck, WP would still find her and list it as part of the Beckham article. --P199 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP is not a part of yellow journalism. --MaNeMeBasat 10:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per AndyJones. Runcorn 10:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, wikipedia is not part of yellow journalism, but it documents it (Natalee Holloway). Jdcooper 13:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article duplicates information found in January 12 (also because I merged it into there). It is the only article of its kind after December 31, 2005, which actually is of a different kind, as it is meant to be transcluded. So more precisely it is one of a kind after... yes, after when exactly? in any case after some date before January 1, 2003. Nothing from Main space links here (anymore). Lambiam^Talk 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete dupe. Otherwise we could have pages for every damn date back to 4000 B.C. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn date. ReyBrujo 11:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note – I see now that the text of the article is a verbatim copy of the section January 2006#12 January 2006, so the effort of merging this into January 12 was a bit pointless. Lambiam^Talk 07:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Terence Ong 14:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect into January 2006#12 January 2006 Computerjoe's talk 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn date. Don't redirect or it will set a precedent and we'll have redirects for every day when anything at all newsworthy happened. --Tango 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivially easy to find. Just zis Guy you know? 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn date. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Arbusto 02:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant Runcorn 10:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 08:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional character, fails WP:Notability (for fictional characters) and WP:WEB. _-M o P-_ 01:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I think video-game player's screen names count as articles about people, and thus fulfills the A7 speedy delete criterion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete if possible, delete otherwise. Probable vanity, the creator only works in this article (only one edit outside it). -- ReyBrujo 03:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. I think it definitely meets the A7 criterion, yes. -- Captain Disdain 03:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete it. "Burn it! Send it to hell!" wikipediatrix 04:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete CSD A7. Tagged. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect

Pharaonic Guardian already exists, this page was just a misspelling Red Director 01:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Pharaonic Guardian appears to be the correct spelling. Eldereft 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Speedy Redirect per above. -- ReyBrujo 02:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There was nothing to merge, so I have turned it into a redirect. Reyk _YO! 09:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal essay on unverifiable subject. FreplySpang (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Eldereft 02:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:OR. -- ReyBrujo 02:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete this gibberish. wikipediatrix 04:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A8. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete it's a copyvio. I had tagged it but the author balnked it.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy unless there's notability that I'm missing. Eldereft 02:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G1. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, fancruft CNichols 02:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not an article about roleplay with Naruto characters, this seems to be an attempt to roleplay right here on Wikipedia itself. I found the final sections kind of amusing, such as "Notes from Heather: hey heather this is monique, click on edit page at the top of this to add you own-- WTH gtg cheese is annoying sasuke" and so on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete with prejudice. Danny Lilithborne 02:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete with prejudice, as per starblind -- Hobbeslover 03:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Starblind. -- ReyBrujo 03:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does this really meet speedy criteria? If it does, sure, speedy delete is fine with me, but I don't think it does. I admit to being rather amused by this ("But Monique thinks that they have more love power", indeed!), but it's about as far from enyclopedic material as it can get without being patent nonsense... -- Captain Disdain 03:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by JzG. -- JLaTondre 11:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 02:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obviously non notable; they don't even have an album out yet! - Bill (who is cool!) 02:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. The editors of the article have deleted the template. -- ReyBrujo 03:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Actually, Speedy Delete fits this per CSD:A7. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Marked as db-bio. Kimchi.sg 08:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet notability criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. —Stormie 10:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Ezeu 06:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

does not clearly state notability and importance Betacommand 02:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete doesnt have importance and does not clearly state notability Betacommand 00:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Many things on Wikipedia do not have "international importance". Also, dozens of articles have less information on American Football players. Do not single this one out for deletion unless you plan on deleting hundreds of others.--Thomas.macmillan 00:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)thomas.macmillan[reply]

Please show the "international importance" and clearly stated "notability" of dozens of American football player stubs on Wikipedia? We should include this small stub on a NFL player unless you want to delete hundreds if not all of the American football players stubs.--Thomas.macmillan 02:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Professional player in notable team. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Capitalistroadster. -- ReyBrujo 03:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a terrible article but nevertheless, it's a no-brainer that an NFL football player is obviously notable for Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 04:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but re-list on here if he gets cut before next season starts. While I understand and agree that all NFL players should have articles, he is at this point just an NFL draft pick and as a seventh round pick might not even play a game. — GT 04:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no no no, this guy is not an NFL player. He's a Crystal Ball player. Let him play a game at the big league level (do they have minor league in football?) and then we'll have an article on him. No rush. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously, delete per CrazyRussian. Write an article about him when he's actually played in a notable game. — Haeleth Talk 09:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets notability criteria set out in WP:BIO - "..or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States" - even if he doesn't play for the Patriots he looks to have qualified through his play for the University of Nebraska, where he apparently performed great defensive feats in 2005: "led the nation with 50 quarterback sacks and 124 tackles behind the line of scrimmage."[8] oops that quote was not about Smith personally —Stormie 10:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think mainly amateur sports refers to sports without professional leagues, for what it's worth. — GT 17:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also, the numbers given relate to the accomplishments of the Nebraska defense, and not specifically to those of Smith. Were the college achievements sufficient to confer notability, we would then suggest that every player on the Cornhuskers defense--at least every starter--would merit an article, and I don't think that's a road down which we want/ought to go. (FWIW, Smith recorded only 36 TFL and 9.5 sacks over his college career; 50 sacks would not only have more than doubled Terrell Suggs's DI record, but also have bested Suggs' career mark [44].) Joe 19:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, you're right, I did misread that sentence, it is talking about the whole defense, not just him. I still say keep, though, based on my reading of WP:BIO. —Stormie 06:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we deleted articles of minor league baseball players and college football players in AFD before, I don't know why WP:BIO says all college players as most won't make the big leagues, Weak Keep for me. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nothing wrong with it. Cvene64 11:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep noted drafted football players. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable sportsman. --Terence Ong 15:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Stormie. JamesMLane t c 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, he was drafted, but he was drafted in the sixth round. If he were to make the Patriots' (or some other team's) squad, then obiously, this would be a very strong keep. As it is, he (like every other draft pick) hasn't played a minute of NFL ball. But the article clearly shows notability, so it's a worthy addition to WP. (And yes, I know the above paragraph was slightly contradictory. The point is, it's a keeper.) -- Kicking222 17:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep I was tempted to nominate many articles for deletion after stubs were created for almost every player taken in the first five rounds of the 2005 NFL Draft, inasmuch as many were non-notable for their collegiate achievements and will not necessarily, as CrzRussian well explains, ever play professional football. The proper disposition, I think, is "keep", where one's being drafted typically leads to one's playing the league (though this is surely a bit of crystal ballism), with the proviso that we ought certainly to revisit in September the articles created subsequent to the draft, with a strong tendency toward "delete" where players have not made NFL squads and are non-notable for their collegiate accomplishments. Joe 19:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question could someone please explain what level he plays at compared to an English footballer? Very difficult for English users (some of us at any rate) to make a decision about notability. Jcuk 07:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NFL, which is of course the highest level of American football, holds a draft every year during which teams select players who (almost without exception) spent the previous few years playing for a Division I university football team. The person in this article was selected in the draft last week but he is not really part of the team yet, as NFL teams hold training camps prior to their seasons during which they choose which players will be on their roster. So at this point the level he plays at is possibly the highest (NFL), or possibly nothing, depending on how good of an impression he makes during training camp this summer. However, he was drafted in the sixth-round and without looking it up, I would guess that the majority of players drafted that late do not end up making the team. — GT 10:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Loads of bio-stubs should be deleted, but this is not high on the list. Runcorn 10:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 06:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodded by creator without comment, who has been creating articles on politicians of this political party Centre Party (Jersey) a minor political party which has competed in regional elections with no success. The subject of the article is one such example.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is in response to recent changes in the news in Jersey.

This political party has two members elected to the states though as independents. Which is the norm for Jersey's political parties at this point in time.

This specific candidate has been successful in Jersey regional (parochial) elections (the equivalent of UK council elections though on a comparatively small scale due to the difference in size) but unsuccessful national elections.

I therefore submit that your criteria for deletion is not valid in this case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardColgate (talk • contribs) .

• • Comment - There is plenty of precedence of local politicians being deleted. Only state and federal members tend to stay.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I guess there is a case that it should go, except that in Jersey's case being a very small state of only 80,000 people our parishes are Australia's States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardColgate (talk • contribs) .

• Delete, fails WP:BIO: Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage. This representant does not have it. The most important coverage was an article he wrote for BBC blog section. -- ReyBrujo 03:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Kukini 16:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I was inclined to keep per User:RichardColgate's concerns, but compared to prominent Jersey politicians (I used the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Wendy Kinnard as my yardstick, she gets four times as many hits, which are of a far higher "notability" score in my mind — she didn't write them herself). This guy really isn't very prominent, so a weak delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps I should start a useless political party and get myself on wiki that way. --Bachrach44 19:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with some reluctance; may be notable in Jersey, but not more widely. Runcorn 10:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was proded and disputed, so I sent it here. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete looks like advertisement, no assertion of notability of the website. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertisment. Check the firstversion of the article: We will contribute, simultaneously, for the increment of some extra photographic technical aspects that this activity holds. They also requested to be sent pics. Website with Alexa rank of 4,339,786. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 03:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, also 213.13.240.93 (talk · contribs), who has deleted the AFD tag twice already [9] [10], has included the link to the site in the Aircraft spotting article. -- ReyBrujo 03:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Completely useless. With only one sentence and a giant screenshot, it's not even a stub, it's a non-article. wikipediatrix 03:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable website. JIP | Talk 08:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertisement. Metamagician3000 12:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JIP and Metamagician3000. DarthVader 14:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as per Wikipediatrix. --P199 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertisement, falis WP:CORP & WP:WEB. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertisement and poor article. Runcorn 10:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable webcomic, does not meet WP:WEB, clearly says no longer says "Basically, it's just like every other webcomic you've ever read." Alexa ranking of the site it's hosted on is 81,688, but this is just a comic hosted on that site. Prod removed without comment. Rory096 03:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable. Andrew_pmk | Talk 03:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Captain Disdain 03:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 03:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it and then Delete it again just to make sure. wikipediatrix 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fake fur. --Hyperbole 07:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fake fur. --Eyaw Nayr 20:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete per nom. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utterly nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unjustifiable. Runcorn 10:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism/possible hoax. I couldn't get any sex-related Google hits for the term (though there was a whole lot of them for Groovejob.com, a site that apparently gets teenagers (presumably groovy) jobs), and while Google isn't the be-all, end-all source for establishing the existence or relevance of something, when it comes to sexual acts, I'd say it does pretty well. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 03:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not so much an encyclopedia article as it is a dictionary definition, but since it's about a non-existent topic, that seems kind of irrelevant. -- Captain Disdain 03:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage. Delete. --Charles 03:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Patent nonsense; neologism; original research. Bucketsofg✐ 03:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. wikipediatrix 03:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEO : Librarianofages 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bucketsofg. DarthVader 14:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 23:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Patent nonsense. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 01:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete unpleasant garbage.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Used several search engines and found nothing. Runcorn 10:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no keep, nomination withdrawn. --Ezeu 06:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on a freelance journalist. Only claim to notability is being the brother of another reporter and the brother of a novelist. While I don't consider this a real assertion of notability, other users do, so I am bringing it here. Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. --Hetar 03:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn due to expansion and addition of sources by author. --Hetar 16:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as nn-bio. Tagged it.  RasputinAXP  c 03:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per expansion by the author at my request. 27,600 google hits. Has written for NYT, Slate, etc. - Jersyko·talk 03:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, many of the Google results are duplicates and any writer that has worked for a few years for newspaper(s) that put content online is going to have a bunch of results, kind of like porn actors. Given additional evidence, I will reconsider. -- Kjkolb 04:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep he is a reporter for major newspapers. Plus all porn actresses are already on WP ;) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it this person meets the WP:BIO definition here: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:BIO per Jersyko. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please he already meets the bio requirements Yuckfoo 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral; finely balanced as to notability. Runcorn 10:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete and redirect to Rufus Buck Gang. --Ezeu 06:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence that this "popular folksinger" exists, let alone is notable. Google only brings up the historical Rufus Buck from the 19th century, and a defunct hard rock band. wikipediatrix 03:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Would the historical Rufus Buck merit an article?. If so, and if the current subject cannot be externally verified through the use of reliable, third party sources, convert to the historical Rufus Buck redirect to Rufus Buck Gang -- Saberwyn 04:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1800's Rufus is covered in the Rufus Buck Gang article. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to redirect. wikipediatrix 04:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per above. -- Kicking222 17:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per above. SorryGuy 23:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per Wikipediatrix. -- ReyBrujo 01:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems fair enough. Runcorn 11:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, vanity, no information Librarianofages 04:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. --soUmyaSch 16:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 23:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although I get 13,400 hits at Google, he fails to meet WP:BIO. -- ReyBrujo 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: hard to justify. Runcorn 11:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the work that goes into this kind of thing, do we really need a list for everything? Wikipedia is not a a repository of links. Deltabeignet 04:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. It's enough that there's List of Canadians (which includes Canadian entertainers). Fluit 07:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a textbook example of listcruft. — Haeleth Talk 09:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and User:Haeleth. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Angus McLellan. DarthVader 14:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Oh my lord, the word "listcruft" might have been created for this very article. -- Kicking222 17:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think the general List of Canadians article covers this.--Eyaw Nayr 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. SorryGuy 23:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unnecessary list. -- ReyBrujo 01:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless someone can provide compelling reasons why it's notable that there are Canadians in the series. 23skidoo 17:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:NOR. Ardenn 17:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 01:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lists are often useful, but this is way over the top. Runcorn 11:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable character in non-notable brief scene in movie; Unverified praise; WP:OWN overriding consensus. Content is in Freddy Got Fingered, but neither an individual article on this subject nor a redirect Freddy Got Fingered is warranted. Шизомби 04:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Delete NN, etc... DejahThoris 05:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 07:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A redirect isn't even warranted. -- Kicking222 17:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there was an expansion to the Freddy got Fingered page for a character list, this may be able to be merged and redirected. Don't see another plausable way to do it. --Eyaw Nayr 20:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Put the information in Freddy got Fingered to see if common contributors to the article accept it. -- ReyBrujo 01:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. Definately non-notable. Lee Bailey 19:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Runcorn 11:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

advertisement for non-notable site. wikipediatrix 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Delete, nn website, fails WP:WEB. Kimchi.sg 09:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB and poor Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --P199 19:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam --Bachrach44 19:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. SorryGuy 23:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, low Alexa rank (144,991), article reads as advertisment. -- ReyBrujo 01:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam is too strong a word but we don't need articles on every web site. Runcorn 11:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inherently POV. Prodded but contested. Hbackman 04:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, you really don't need to do that bolded "delete" thing. It doesn't add anything to your nomination, and may confuse newbies into thinking that AfD is a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...yeah, that's a good point. Sorry. Hbackman 05:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A6 as attack page - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't agree that it is inherently POV. There does seem to be an increased usage of the phrase for this president, which can be presented without bias. However, as it stands, it certainly doesn't need it's own article. -user:rasd
• Delete Much as I despise the guy, I'm not sure this merits an article. I doubt Bush is the only one considered to have been the worst president ever (and there are many presidents besides the POTUS). I don't think the article qualifies for Speedy deletion as an attack page; WP does have similar sorts of articles like Films considered the worst ever. Possibly smerge some content to George W. Bush but without a redirect; the Rolling Stone article is mentioned there already but I think the HNN articles are more significant. Keep a mention in Miserable failure but unlink it. Шизомби 05:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Nowhere in the aricle is it asserted that Bush is the worst, so the "attack page" argument is as bogus as is the POV argument. The article addresses the origins and usage of the phrase, a phrase which gets 519,000 Google hits, and is backed up with several articles from professional historians. Films considered the worst ever-- obviously and inherently POV-- gets an article, as does miserable failure, but a discussion of the history and usage of this phrase doesn't? There's obviously a double-standard at work. Rizzleboffin 06:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as inherently POV. Some people have called Clinton, and Bush Sr., and Reagan, and Carter, and other presidents the worst president ever. While the article as currently written does not assert that George W. Bush is the worst president ever, it discusses the belief that he is the worst president ever without considering any other possibilities. And as soon as the next president is inaugurated, some of his or her political opponents will call that person the worst president ever. --Metropolitan90 06:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility (e.g. the "great president" Google bomb which redirects to the Bush biography) was in the article until just before it was recommended for deletion. Also, there is nothing to prevent further possibilities from being discussed, including discussions of any and all other presidents who have been, and still are considered the worst, if that is seen as the article's offense. As a matter of fact, it sounds to me like a very interesting area to investigate, though ultimately a futile one for a Wikipedia article if such thoughts are to be censored here. I came onto this article as a little, obviously POV stub, but thought it had informational value and hoped to shape it into a NPOV discussion of the phrase and its history. If a discussion of who professional historians consider to be the worst president is taboo, how about the best? Rizzleboffin 06:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Warren G. Harding. No, just kidding. I think the best thing to do here would be to move the article to Presidents considered the worst ever and merge this article into a George W. Bush subhead. This is, really, a notable and verifiable topic, and there are plenty of well-cited expert opinions on the subject. (And, believe me, there will certainly be a section on Harding) --Hyperbole 06:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a workable solution to me, Hyperbole. Rizzleboffin 06:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very unlikely that it would ever be NPOV. --Icarus 07:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to George W. Bush. I agree, this article never states that Bush is the worst president ever, only that some people say he is. JIP | Talk 08:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and start over No page-protection, no redirect. Start over again. This time, NPOV, and working with the "Worst President Ever" Googlebomb. Heck, if someone can walk me through how to create a subpage in userspace, I'll rewrite the thing. Captainktainer * Talk 09:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just put a slash on and then your title: User:Captainktainer/Worst president ever (draft). If you want, you can start by copying the current text into that link, so that the edit history will show all your changes. JamesMLane t c 15:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Historical rankings of United States Presidents -- Plutor 13:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editing my vote: after speedily deleting for A6, extend a redirect to Googlebomb - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still one of those confused newbies at Wikipedia referred to above, so I'm trying to wrap my mind around the intricacies of the NPOV policy. Apparently an article on the Historical rankings of United States Presidents is neutral, but an article on which presidents are ranked worst is an "attack article" and inherently POV. I'd be tempted to look at this historical ranking article in depth to see how the rankings are achieved with there being no best and no worst... But it dawns on me that I came to Wikipedia to avoid exactly this sort of nonsense in political forums. Guess I'll stick to film, cartoons and music articles. Rizzleboffin 16:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under CSD-A6. I don't like him either to be honest, but it's a attack page that shouldnt be on wikipedia. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I still question whether and why it could be considered an attack page. If people think the idea of an article on Presidents considered the worst ever has merit, then a move may be in order, although be sure first whether it should be a page on Presidents or United States Presidents. Шизомби 16:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Googlebomb. --Hetar 16:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as an attack page. I absolutely despise GWB, but this article is an attack, pure and simple. It shouldn't be a redirect, and it shouldn't be a discussion (which would be completely POV). It should just be deleted. -- Kicking222 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article's stated intent to delve into various Presidents is ridiculous, because ALL Presidents have been, at some point, thought to be the "worst President ever" in someone's opinion. Even JFK was widely hated by a considerable segment of the population. One might as well just merge with List of Presidents of the United States. wikipediatrix 17:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your implication seems to be that since all presidents have been disliked by someone, we must ignore the considered and educated opinions of non-partisan professional historians. Apparently objectivity and neutrality have long since been abandoned in the decision to delete this article. But allow me to point out that the article does not present just someone's opinion, but the opinion of professional historians, supported by articles eloquently explaining the reasons for their opinion. The article is open to present further opinions of professional historians on other presidents who have been legitimately considered the worst. NOT presidents considered worst only by partisans on the other political side. For the record, here is the quote from the article this morning (anyone is free to modify, improve, and add to it as they see fit): This article will go on to discuss the history of the term "worst president ever," which Presidents professional historians (not bickering partisans) have generally considered the worst, and their reasons for doing so.-- Rizzleboffin 17:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound as if this article is some lofty and scholarly historical analysis. In fact, it's an three-paragraph-long article entirely devoted to George W. Bush and a Googlebomb. And regardless, why do we need a history of the term "Worst President Ever"? What's next, a history of the term "Worst Senator Ever"? "Best Coffee Ever"? "My head hurts"? "Boy, I hate Mondays"? wikipediatrix 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Inherently POV, and not encyclopedic. --Durin 18:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete irredemably POV --Bachrach44
• Delete Ignoring all POV issues, Wikipedia is not a repository of quotes, nor does this article conform to an encylopedic format. --Eyaw Nayr 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no intent on recreation - I added the prod to this article because the topic cannot be discussed neutrally, it is just a biased topic. slasher600 (talk · contribs)Slasher600 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant or merge This topic is inherently redundant to Historical rankings of United States Presidents, which is a more neutral title, and also in much better shape. Best/worst is a value judgement, and it is better to use a non-value laden title. GRBerry 20:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Bachrach44 : Librarianofages 22:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, inherently POV. At least for now, he's not even considered the "worst president ever" by historians; that honor goes to Warren G. Harding. BryanG 22:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOV. --Slgrandson 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, article could be expanded to other countries, but due political affiliations of reporters, editors, etc, every president of every country could be added. It would be impossible to keep such article neutral. -- ReyBrujo 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see how it can be saved from the POV hole it's in. Even with sources, it just comes off as an attack article on the current sitting president (who, by this very position, is considered the worst president ever by somebody). An article on presidential rankings, discussing presidents who have been voted worst ever by scholarly and popular polls might have merit (if one doesn't already exist) but this isn't it. The phrase doesn't even have Internet meme or catchphrase equity. 23skidoo 17:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice per Metropolitan90. If someone wants to start over, they had better well cover all the other candidates - Herbert Hoover, Franklin Pierce, and Warren G. Harding have a few bad things to be said about them, I understand. See Historical rankings of United States Presidents. AnonEMouse 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. I'm sure that at some point in time, some people have considered every president to be the worst ever. Zaxem 02:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reads like an essay, seems to be original research, even though it uses citations. Andjam 08:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not overly worried about POV, but it's a thoroughly useless article. Runcorn 11:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft-related, not really encyclopedic. -- Curps 05:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable Starcraft map. Highly notable maps can be merged into Starcraft but this particular one returns a whopping zero Google hits. --Hyperbole 06:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Hyperbole. JIP | Talk 08:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. Sounds like more of a how-to advertisement. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Arnzy. DarthVader 14:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertisment. -- ReyBrujo 02:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, not an advertisement (there's no commercial gain involved for a free mod-map) and is notable. It may not have a website, but it's pretty damn common on Battle.net. If you haven't been there lately, don't vote, as you're uninformed. Admittedly the article could use improvement, but that can be fixed, it's not a justification to delete (especially when deleting means any better version of the page that's created can be instantly deleted, essentially preventing it from ever coming back) --Col. Hauler 21:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having looked at battle.net, I still see no reason to keep. Runcorn 11:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism. Google returns 13,500 hits for 'plogging blog', but most of the results return highly divergent definitions of "plogging", which frequently disagree with the article's definition. Delete. Goobergunch|? 05:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn neologism. See this: [11] Apparently amazon.com trademarked "plogging" as a "personalized blog" for recommending books to buyers; various people have attempted to define the term in various ways, and the author of this page is most likely one of them. None of the uses of this word, in my opinion, cross the notability threshold. --Hyperbole 06:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete either nn neologism or protologism Just zis Guy you know? 15:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --P199 19:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 02:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; an incoherent situation. Runcorn 11:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. --Ezeu 07:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity page which might also fail WP:NEO jmd 05:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Faith healing - it appears that several different organizations have used this term, each with a different meaning; some are Christian and some are based on Classical Greek theology [12]. There is also a dictionary entry that defines the term simply as "faith healing" [13]. At any rate, what appears to be a non-notable Christian organization has claimed the article as a vanity page. --Hyperbole 06:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete history and redirect per Hyperbole. Just zis Guy you know? 14:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Hyperbole. -- ReyBrujo 02:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Runcorn 15:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. --Ezeu 08:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been plenty of brawls in NHL history. I don't think each one needs a separate article. Also, can this really ever be NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewi9486 (talk • contribs)

Keep. Although heavily biased, this is more or less how the fight played out, with Lemieux and Roy sustaining heavier injuries than their counterparts. This fight is quite notable in the context of the Wings-Avalanche rivalry. I would favor a merge if a rivalry page was created. Isopropyl 06:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Cleanup per Isopropyl. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep". This fight was a major pivotal point in hockey in the 90's. While fights happen alot, this was an all out battle royale, and shifted the power paradigm from Denver to Detroit.

Strong Delete. In a list of the top 20 pivotal moments in hockey in the '90s, this is nowhere near the list. Such a determination of the notability of this fight is inherently POV and subjective. If anything, the info here should be merged into the articles on the respective players or teams. Otherwise, leave this stuff for one of Don Cherry's videos. Fluit 17:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep and Cleanup..... Is "Brawl in Hockeytown" really an appropriate name for the article, though? Is this really the term that Hockey fans universally refer to this incident as? (Sorry, but what I don't know about sports, you can almost fit into the Hollywood Bowl.) wikipediatrix 17:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it an appropriate name? No. Not even a bit. I'm voting delete (see below), but if this article survives, it certainly has to be renamed. -- Kicking222 17:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Isopropyl 20:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete Sure, it was a fight between two important teams, but it was just a fight. Unless someone got seriously hurt or suspended for a particularly long time, it's impossible to claim that any fight was a pivotal point in a hockey season. In addition, this article could never be POV. And adding in that the Wings won the Stanley Cup every season in which the teams fought is just pointless. -- Kicking222 17:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and Kicking222. If anything, this bit of trivia can be merged to 1996-97 NHL season. --P199 19:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename. Even though this is just one in a long history of brawls in the NHL, and in hockeytown for that matter, an accurate (perhaps even a bit biased) account of what happened should be kept alive. However, I reccomend the title be changed to include the date. I don't see this article being merged successfully into another while maintaining flow, however.--Eyaw Nayr 20:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, interesting article but I agree that this can be merged per P199. -- ReyBrujo 02:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the deleters. This event was pivital on the development of a competitve advantage the Red Wing's had with Denver, which eventually resulted in the Wing's defeating them in the WCF. Prior to this event, the Red Wings were effectively at the mercy of Denver's advantage in the area of physical play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.39 (talk • contribs)

• If it is so important (but really it isn't in the long run), merge info to 1996-97 NHL season - the only logical place where people would look for it. As a NHL follower I can say that this does not warrent its own page. -- P199 02:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete This event is not notable in terms of brawls (was only a line brawl, not a bench-clearing brawl) and it's relevance becomes increasingly limited as time wears on. Also, fails NPOV. Possible merge as per Kicking222 Caulfield14 20:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article's purpose is to record and document a significant historical event between two NHL teams, more than just a ubiquitous hockey fight. Greater in extent than even the Pacers-Pistons Brawl because of its immediate and long-term repercussions, this fight marked the turn of the Detroit Red Wings into what they became many years afterward (and some could argue even today): championship worthy. Downgrading this event from its own page onto 1996-97 NHL season, because of passing years or for any other reason, might stand to lose some of its historical importance within the scope of the Red Wings, the NHL and sports as a whole. Keep the article with cleanup where perceived bias exists without changing the facts, if so compelled. However, there should be no name change, as few people, especially from Detroit, would call this event by any other name than "Brawl in Hockeytown"; its been known by that name for almost ten years. Rothesay 15:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Runcorn 15:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Ezeu 08:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply put, this is not an encyclopaedia article. It's a lesser copy of timetable information already available from an official source, likely to go out of date quickly, and unlikely to be useful to anyone (you can't trust it being up-to-date, so you'd have to use the official website). Wikipedia was not intended to host mirrors of bus timetables ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. Aplomado - UTC 06:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, although an article ABOUT the station may do, this will become obsolete, and as Aplomado said, wikipedia is not... -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete WP:NOT. Dspserpico
• Delete I'm a resident and I was actually surprised that the list was there. Also surprised I didn't spot the real TransLink article till now *shakes head* sendai 09:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Astrokey44 11:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Much work was put into creating this article. It provides valuable information such as the new bus numbering system Routes 700-799 (Gold Coast) about to be introduced on the Gold Coast. --WikiCats 11:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per WikiCats, furthermore it's a part of the Public transport project in Australia, if this page was to be deleted, the Melbourne and Perth pages would have to be placed up for Afd as well --Arnzy (Talk) 11:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is by no means a lesser version. There is no page on the Translink site that has all this information without wading through hundreds of PDF files. I've relied on it, and there are many of us who frequently update the page as new information is made available that otherwise wouldn't be on the Translink site. -Bunza 14:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't care how useful it is for locals, it's just not encyclopedic. --Eivind^t@c 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource. While I am normally reluctant to vote delete on a Wikiproject associated article, I think that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. From my experience of the Canberra system, bus services change at least a yearly basis so this would be very difficult to keep up to date. Perhaps should be Transwiki' to Wikisource. Capitalistroadster 03:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  How about the Australia wikia? --Astrokey44 12:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think this is valid information. Lankiveil 05:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Needs work but something could be made of it. Grace Note 11:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons below:

fuddlemark: The suggestion that this information is out of date or unreliable is erroneous and without foundation. I update this article regularly and in advance of all changes released by TransLink. Wikipedia is intended to be dynamic and not static. Further, other articles use the route data, such as every railway station and some other minor pages. This is not a mirror as you suggest, but a reference source by which the appropriate TT can be found at a glance. Aplomado: None of this information is indiscriminate - it is logically ordered and does not meet anything in. WP:NOT, except potentially a travel guide and that is pushing it. This is an highly accurate list of public bus routes, not mere phone numbers or a FAQ. Sendai: The actual TransLink page is linked in the first sentence. Capitalroadster: See above, it is very easy to keep this up to date, and I am willing to do so. Wikipedia is not non-changing.

Further, similar lists exist for Melbourne and Perth, albeit with lesser detail. This is a functional and useful article which I and other refer to on a regular basis. Wikipedia encompasses a broader concept of what is encyclopaedic than that which is traditional, and thus incorporates articles all over the world about public transport services, such as an analogous page for every Australian urban rail system and one for every line and station. Most importantly - the previous incarnation of this article (renamed from (Brisbane) to the more accurate (South East Queensland)) was permitted to survive.SM247 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: A travel guide? Actually, I think "directory" would be a far more fitting description. Aplomado - UTC 22:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete current information is never encyclopaedic. A historical perspective is necessary. Otherwise its just a tourist guide. Justinc 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Route information is absolutely common in Wikipedia:

• Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority bus routes,
• Hong Kong bus route numbering,
• List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines,
• MTA New York City Transit buses,
• Routemaster,
• Toronto buses and trolley buses,
• Sullivan Buses,
• Key MBTA bus routes,
• Category:London bus routes etc.

so an argument of WP:NOT is really not valid. --WikiCats 13:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • If Wikipedia is going to stoop to the level of listing bus route information, then God help us all. Aplomado - UTC 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - useful information kept up to date. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. the nomination fails to make this clear that this is not timetable information, but simply a list of routes. I would not support keeping the current bus timetable on Wikipedia, but this is similar information to many, many other public transport system articles. IMO, an article like this (accurate, maintained, sourced real information useful to people) should not be deleted; at worst, it should be moved to another Wiki, but I'm not even convinced of that in this case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With regards to JustinC: the proposition that current information is not valid content for a dynamic online encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia is so misconceived that I do not know where to begin. This is also clearly not a tourist guide e.g. as would appear on WikiTravel or a brochure. SM247 07:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. But could do with some work. There's some information in that list, but Wikipedia is definitely not a timetable. Loom91 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Informative but needs work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcw69 (talk • contribs)
• Comment The information is clearly disclaimed with an admonition to check TransLink. This is not a timetable or schedule at all as there is no indication of running times, only of the services provided. SM247 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to the Australia Wikia, or Wikisource, or something. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Would be best on Wikitravel, but the licenses aren't compatible. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Verfiable, precedent set by other route articles. -- Synapse 10:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikicats comment about other route articles and Morvens vote. The information is simply detailing the routes that are available. It has precedent and is easy to keep up to date as the routes are not as subject to major change as the timetable schemes. Ansell 10:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This would not be acceptable at Wikisource, please read the inclusion guidelines. Either it is not an exact copy of a published source or else it is likely a Copyright Violation. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - this is not a timetable - it's a list of routes and is perfectly acceptable - Hong Kong MTR, CityRail, Metlink, Transperth all have bus routes mentioned in articles - so why not this one. The article needs work, but that's not a reason to delete it. (JROBBO 12:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete; goes far beyond the bounds of an encyclopaedia article. Runcorn 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This page and its predecessor were singled out. Why not also list for deletion the equivalent pages in other cities? Melbourne has an actual page for each of its tram routes for goodness' sake. I think there is ample and substantiated precedent for keeping this page which has apparently been disregarded by some, or if not disregarded then in being acknowledged has resulted in an uneven application of policy. SM247 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this nomination not just for this article, but also all the articles listed in it. With apologies to User:Jcw69, who appears to have put a lot of work into this mess, this appears to be a colossal collection of useless information documenting every mundane event that took place in every year of South African history for the past 500 years. How could this possibly be considered encyclopedic? Who could find this useful? And, most importantly, what purpose does this serve that "History of South Africa" does not fulfill? If you ask me, this violates the "indiscriminate collection of information" principle. Obviously it's up to you guys to decide, but if you ask me, an admin should wipe this landfill of information clean off Wikipedia ... IMHO. Aplomado - UTC 06:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn due to no delete votes. Aplomado - UTC 22:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with each individual year (and remove the unimportant and mundane events). Make it look like Timeline of Australian history, which IMHO is a very important and helpful article. --Mitch119 06:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This whole thing is simply following an already-established precedent per Category:Years by country — 23 other countries already have their own dedicated "Years in country" categories filled with year-by-year articles just like these, and a "Timeline of country history" master list. I see no particularly convincing reason why South Africa should be excluded from that, especially since it's a country with a rather important and interesting history. Keep. Bearcat 09:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of other timelines at Category:Nation timelines --Astrokey44 11:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mitch119; timelines are useful, but not in the format that this one is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but please improve it. It's quite useful, actually, but almost none of these factoids are sourced. wikipediatrix 17:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 17:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there seems to be a solid precedent for this kind of stuff. Besides, it's interesting, informative and took a lot of work. Grandmasterka 18:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Precedent, don't see why South Africa is less of a country than the others. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, but the article really needs big improvement. The article could be pointed to Timeline of Australian history in order to get ideas of how to improve it. -- ReyBrujo 02:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - I disagree with Aplomado, timelines are important, it links the history and supports the History of South Africa. I based this article on the Canadian one. The indiviual articles off it are still growing. If I make it like the Austrialian one it would be way too big. I think that the Austrialian one should be improved.--Jcw69 19:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Bearcat and others here; I also believe it could be expanded slightly towards the Aussie version, although I share Jcw69's concerns about its size. dewet|✉ 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and continue to improve. It's a nice resource. Guinnog 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's useful and interesting, and a strong precedent for this sort of thing has already been set. I would not object to a move more towards the Australian version though, in which the most important even in each year is highlighted. — Impi 21:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This vote is well on the way to Keep, but as a comment, Jcw69 has done an amazing job on detail for South Africa, and I couldn't possibly support removing all his hard work. Wizzy…☎ 06:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep - These articles are a great resource. However, they need to have references for some of the more obscure factoids. If the consensus is to merge, I would not oppose, but prefer to keep. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 06:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are lots of timelines on Wikipedia, from countries to the Muhammad cartoons controversy to years in music. Elf-friend 09:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like many of the other people who've commented, I think a timeline of SA history is interesting and useful. A tidy up would be nice, and I also prefer the format of the Australian version, but that's no reason to delete this. Joziboy 4 May 2006, 17:44 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is a very useful timeline for South Africa, which makes historical understanding far easier. Chris 20:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I agree with comments around improving it to a similar look and feel of Timeline of Australian history but what a great start! Good for anyone researching SA history. Find it ironic that the strong comments come from Aplomado who is creating stubs about individual players in a single team's NFL offensive lineup in the 80's!?! I think this falls much closer to Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons in indiscriminate collection of information! PappaG 17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You obviously know nothing about American football. Aplomado - UTC 22:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per, well, everybody above. As I understand it, we vote based on the potential for encyclopaedicity (is that a word?) of the articles, not necessarily just on their current contents. Since it seems to be accepted that articles like Timeline of Australian history, 1902 in Canada (and so on) are encyclopaedic, I can't see why similar articles about South Africa should be any different. Although it would probably be better if it used the format of Timeline of Australian history, there is precedent for how it looks now; see Timeline of Canadian history. - htonl 22:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. It is important to have this kind of articles. — mark ✎ 11:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Wikipedia is not running out of space. The article could do with some improving, but it would serve absolutely no purpose to just delete it. Wikipedia would be better off with MORE articles on Africa (which is severly under-represented due to WP:BIAS), not less. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 11:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note For Aplomado's information TUF-KAT has a table of topics by country and in it he has timelines of counties history--Jcw69 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe an embarrassment of riches, but on the whole worth having. Runcorn 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 07:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page lacks content, and only serves as advertisement. The organization lacks any notablility and fails to comply with WP:WEB--PatCheng 06:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With 593,000 Google hits, this appears to be a highly notable radio network. Also has made the mainstream news a couple times within the last month [14]. The page does badly lack content, but the solution is not to delete it. --Hyperbole 06:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being a stub doesn't mean it should be deleted and it appears to have a google presence as per Hyperbole. MyNameIsNotBob 08:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above User:Hyperbole. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sound of hope got my attention since their reporters seemed the first people to apply visas to China to investigate China's live organ harvesting allegation on Falun Gong practitioners, in response to China Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Qin, Gang's invitation to check out the alleged medical facilities functioning as death camps. However, the visa applications were denied. Fnhddzs 21:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Except out of the 593,000 Google hits, very little has anything to do with the site. Soundofhope only gets 388,000 results, and Soundofhope.org only 1.--PatCheng 02:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It appears notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Having listened and visited the site, the organization is one of the many Falun Gong sponsored media fronts. Others include Boxun, Reminbao, Clearwisdom, Minghui etc. Do we need a page for every one of these organizations?--AstrixZero 07:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AstrixZero Runcorn 15:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost an A7 speedy, but there's sort of an assertion of notability. This is a student at Hampshire College, who's working on a thesis, and that's it. Delete, per WP:BIO. GTBacchus^(talk) 07:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO and vanity. Dspserpico 07:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dspserpico. --Edcolins 11:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--blue520 14:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Vanity, bio and, to date, nn. -- MarcoTolo 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, vanity (created by user Adrilopez (talk · contribs)). If not, Delete. -- ReyBrujo 02:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly vanity article Runcorn 15:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. No ghits for "Hung Like This" "Sean Muldowney". De-prodded with this somewhat confusing explanation: "(I have seen a pilot of this show on youtube before dont know but cant find anything warranting calling this article non-notable)" Icarus 07:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until such time as Muldowney actually manages to find this a cable TV home, generates some controversy in the mainstream media, or otherwise transforms this into a major internet phenomenon. --Hyperbole 07:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just did a YouTube search for Hung Like This. There were no results. A google video search for "Hung Like This" also turned up no results. --Icarus 08:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Hyperbole Just zis Guy you know? 14:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Non-notable, vanity (nobody above mentioned that the article was written by a user named "Seanmuldy"), nothing on Google... what else needs to be said? -- Kicking222 17:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity, unverifiable. -- MarcoTolo 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. -- ReyBrujo 02:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete quite clear-cut. Runcorn 15:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability. Only one hit to him in first 50 Google results for his (quite poular) name. Wrote only one book with audience much les than 5K required by WP:BIO MaxSem 08:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• CSD A7 as tagged. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't need an article of its own. Details already in Friday (film) Thorpe | talk 09:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 19:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 02:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Runcorn 15:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band, currently inactive, has only released a few CD-R's, fails to meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Stormie 10:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Borderline speedy delete, very, very little assertion of notability. Grandmasterka 10:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails to meet WP:MUSIC.--blue520 14:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Currently looking for a new drummer" - Um, this isn't Craig's List, guys. -- MarcoTolo 20:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to WP:MUSIC --Eivind^t@c 22:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. -- ReyBrujo 02:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable Runcorn 15:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]