Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 24 May 26 >

Purge server cache

May 25[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikaika Kahoano

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispossession Theory[edit]

Only 9 Ghits? Looks like WP:OR to me, but I brought it up here anyway... M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This may be notable (see cjllw's comment below) but under a different name in English. Please keep this in mind. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 21:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Looks original to me too Devotchka 00:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll third the OR (and nn) sentiment. -- Kicking222 01:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like Sufism and Immanuel Kant blended together inelegantly. - Corbin Be excellent 01:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, no RS if not. Crum375 01:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR Dominick (TALK) 01:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Osbus 01:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: Crazynas 03:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 03:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Joe Jklin (T C) 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Nick C 13:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and if someone finds research that isn't original then they can put it up later. Random the Scrambled 14:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 15:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment/potential keep. It's not actually original research (in the sense that it is something dreamt up by the contributor); rather it's a brief description of a concept related in the philosophical work Falsafatuna by notable Iraqi Shiite cleric and ulema, Baqir al-Sadr, as can be seen in the work which is available in english online here. Baqir as-Sadr makes the claim in the work that the theory is a particular concept found in Islamic philosophy, and perhaps it is (it may be that it is more commonly translated by some other term in english). Baqir as-Sadr is certainly a notable and quotable source (although the article on his book is also up for deletion), but someone better versed in Islamic philosophy than me needs to establish if it is a particular concept acknowledged and recognised in the field, or whether it is a term only found in Baqir as-Sadr's works (or even, a mis-labelling introduced by his translator).--cjllw | TALK 14:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJLLW and WP:BITE— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornplease (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep/withdraw as bad faith nom. The other English name "Our Philosophy" is much more notable than "Falsafatuna". --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falsafatuna[edit]

only 632 Ghits. Non-notable book; entry is possibly vanity. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Withdrawn. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Looks pretty widespread. Needs to be cleaned-up anyway; they "to be continued" at the end isn't exactly encyclopedic. Devotchka 00:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't decide a vote. Book looks notable, and not vanity (where is that from?). However, whole article looks like a copyrighted synopsis (especially with the 'to be continued'). Chuck(척뉴넘) 00:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not notable and looks like it was lifted from an ebook. If it is notable it will come back inactual article form. Dominick (TALK) 01:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can notibility be determined with something like a foreign book.? Google hits will bring up appropriate English pages, but that's all. Plus 632 hits is a lot, isn't it? Chuck(척뉴넘) 01:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep if it's not copied from somewhere else. —Mets501talk 01:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Same article also exists at Our Philosophy (Falsafatuna). Oddly, it's tagged with a {{hangon}} even though it was never tagged for CSD. Clearly, we do not need two copies. Fan1967 02:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Devotchka 02:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at this point, I don't see any verifiable sources. Also, it reads like a book report. Wickethewok 04:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The book itself is online [1]. The question is, is the book notable? Clearly the author's family is, but I have no way of knowing about the book. Is it a significant work in Shiite beliefs? Fan1967 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep by AGF on Parihan's part, but if becomes a book review then it's original research. Give it more than a day though. Teke 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep per Teke. Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book's author Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr is certainly notable as one of the more prominent Iraqi Shiite clerics, jurisprudents and ulema of the 20th C., and much of that notability rests on what he said, wrote and philosophised about (rather goes with the job description). Accordingly, significant works of his such as this book and his work on economics (Iqtisaduna ) are likewise notable, just as they are for works of other religious and philosophical figures. As for its content, I do not believe it to be OR, since it seems only to summarise the book's content and main points (which is what other articles on books mainly do), and is readily verifiable since as pointed out above the book's text is available online in english. It's not really a 'review', and there are no grandiose claims, opinions, or other unsubstantiable mentions that I can see which would push this into OR. I don't see a reason to suspect they are not the contributing editor's own words either. The other oddities can be attributed perhaps to the contributor's unfamiliarity with wikipedia conventions, and I take the 'to be continued' tag as the contributor flagging that they intend to expand on the article. I agree that the prose does need a good copyedit and the overall style needs to be less idiosyncratic, but these can presumably be addressed.--cjllw | TALK 05:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs some cleanup, but it looks like an attempt to summarize a significant work by a notable author. Fan1967 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJLLLW and WP:BITE. Also I continue to be amazed by nominations that seem to have come from people who have not followed the links in the article. How can anyone read the al-Sadr article linked to from this one and determine this is a vanity page, let alone think its nn enough to do all the work for an AFD? Extraordinary puzzlement here. Hornplease 07:49, 27 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 snowy delete. Sango123 (e) 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim matrimonial[edit]

This page is a directory of Muslim matrimonial websites. I presume that the subject of Muslim matrimony and/or matrimonial practices is infinitely broader than what's contained in this article. I don't see anything appropriate in the Marriage in Islam category that this can be merged into, so I'd vote to delete. Anirvan 00:44, 25 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 A7. Naconkantari 01:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team roll[edit]

Non-notable group of high-schoolers. Was tagged with {{db-bio}}, but that was removed. This is the next step. Delete as non-notable biography. - Corbin Be excellent 01:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. db-bio was right. A7 applies. Fan1967 01:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Team Roll was created ... to assure that an aura was cast upon the members." Sounds hazardous. GassyGuy 01:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7 as a group with no notability asserted. -- Kicking222 01:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:NOR Should we add our names too? Please Add your name / Another Members Name who was not posted. Dominick (TALK) 01:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team roll assures that this is a very notible bio. Give the wikipedia time to build.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A6. Naconkantari 01:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Newland[edit]

This seems to be nonsense. 0zymandias 01:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete It seems to be a marginally literate attack page. Fan1967 01:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete--Nick Y. 01:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy spidey delete Friends with Spiderman to boot! Dominick (TALK) 01:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete on wheels! —Mets501talk 01:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete after evaluating this for BJAODN (but I think this only marginally funny) dott.Piergiorgio 01:39, 25 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 Speedied. Tawker 03:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newmusicireland[edit]

originally prodded (by me). Utterly nonnotable and fails WP:WEB. Only contributor is...well...newmusicireland. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 01:25, 25 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 01:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sociowiki[edit]

Non-notable, 28 Ghits (mainly Russian). Contested prod.

Comment Looks like it should. I imagine they both may be quite useful for specialised interest groups but they don't appear to be notable overall. Dlyons493 Talk


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

The result of the debate was Result : Speedy delete as A1 + A7 JoJan 08:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wordalicious[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - is not 3.A usage guide or slang and idiom guide

  • Speedy.--Peta 01:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish that was a speedy candidate. Unfortunately, it's not. Delete as per nom. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Devotchka 02:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per my nom....or is it a vanity page (author of article credits his own humble self as the inventor of the word). Ahhh, too many choices, all saying 'delete'. ॐ Priyanath 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A1, A7; if it doesn't qualify, then a standard delete will do. Hobbeslover 02:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, A7. --Terence Ong 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy lame attempt at a vanity page. JohnM4402 04:57, 25 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 Speedied. Tawker 03:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Rhymez[edit]

Aside from the wiki article and mirrors, the only hits for this rapper are on Mp3.com, I think it fails WP:MUSIC, delete.--Peta 01:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sixteen-year-old Austrian rapper who has performed at his school. Fails WP:MUSIC by about a parsec. Fan1967 01:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and nom. Devotchka 02:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7 non-notable. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, A7. --03:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Xoloz 04:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwaterchimp[edit]

Does not establish notability and reads like a vanity page. Low Alexa rating, not very helpful Google results. Crystallina 02:14, 25 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 01:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car Coining[edit]

Localised neologism, de-prodded by author. cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:43, 21 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. Tawker 03:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Herrboldt Hahn[edit]

Someone in the US military, not notable, delete.--Peta 02:25, 25 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 01:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRG's cat[edit]

Unencyclopedic newsgroup lingo, delete--Peta 02:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On what grounds? --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:35, 28 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 A7-band. Xoloz 03:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outhouse Moan[edit]

Very detailed article about what sadly seems to be a nonnotable local TX band; article notes they are unsigned and "await[] any offers" NawlinWiki 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy CSD A7 Hobbeslover 02:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - obvious, though the dude in the Native American headdress is rockin out. Wickethewok 03:06, 25 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 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Berg[edit]

Hoax. Couldn't find anything on Google except -- a park in Stillwater, MN named after one Otto Berg (who, I would guess, was not a murderer) [2] NawlinWiki 02:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed. Why would someone waste their time making up such a lame hoax? Anyway, that's what it appears to be. Devotchka 02:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 04:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: hoax as is, even if re-written about the park it'd be nn. Take your pick --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense, with no citations. - Nick C 13:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Avi 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nick C. -- FRCP11 15:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it's not a hoax, it's nn. --Dakart 23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator, hoax or no hoax. Yamaguchi先生 01:22, 26 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 (per precedent) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maple High School[edit]

Withdrawn Non-notable school. Argon233 T C @ ∉  02:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I still don't see the use of this or similar K-12 school articles (is it _really_ considered useful to collect potentially tens of thousands of articles with basicly trivial information like this example?), but I was not previously aware of the material pointed out here, and it appears that my nomination is going against an established consensus (or lack of consensus as the case may be), so I think the best thing to do at the moment is to withdraw this AfD nomination. -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  06:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a criteria for schools and notability? Hobbeslover 03:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nope, Wikipedia:Schools didn't pass, and as far as I know there's no other criteria "on paper" yet. However it is general practice to keep pretty much all school articles. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:SCH, all schools are notable. --Terence Ong 04:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like there are articles on high schools worldwide. NawlinWiki 04:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (as a follow-up to my comment above). I don't believe every school is notable enough for an article just because it's a school, but I submit to precedent and current consensus. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:05, 25 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 01:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excelonics[edit]

Delete - not even a full page of Google hits. Spam, especially the first version of the article, though it does claim that at Excelonics, the customer is indeed "number one". Nothing in the way of WP:CORP. Wickethewok 03:04, 25 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 G7. Naconkantari 04:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HealthFrame[edit]

Delete - Spam. Pretty obvious given the editor's username. Wickethewok 03:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should only be deleted if you also delete WebMD. Please go to the Wikipedia's entry for Personal Health Record. WebMD is entered in the Examples section. If you follow the link for WebMD there is NO deletion request. WebMD's personal health record is a commercial product, for which users must pay an yearly fee. The fact that the editor does not choose to hide her identity behind an alias should not be the reason for deletion. There was nothing to hide given the obvious precedent for WebMD's commercial product. simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006

  • Comment If I do a google search for WebMD.com, I get 3 million hits. If I do a google search for RecordsForLiving.com, I get 300. WebMD is notable. RecordsForLiving is not. Fan1967 04:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebMD may be notable, but WebMD's personal health record isn't. Do a search for "WebMD Health Manager" and you will find that this particular product is NOT notable. simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006

  • Comment You make a good argument for removing their name from that page. Interestingly, it was only added there last week [3], by an anonymous user. Fan1967 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more point, the entry was NOT for Records For Living (the company) the entry was for HealthFrame. simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006

  • Comment ...and the first google hits for HealthFrame are Records For Living, so anybody looking for it will find you. Fan1967 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Securamed still remains in Wikipedia. Are they notable too? simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006

  • Comment I have no idea. Many non-notable people and companies remain in Wikipoedia a while because nobody noticed them. Certainly worth looking at. However, whether they are or are not has no effect on whether your company is. Fan1967 04:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I prod'd Securamed for deletion, as it looks spammy and not particularly notable. Wickethewok 04:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like the Securamed author was also the one who added WebMD to that page. Gues s/he thought it would be too blatant to add Securamed by itself. Fan1967 04:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Can then someone explain the differences in speed to take action? simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006

  • Comment There are over a million articles in Wikipedia. There are probably thousands that have never been looked at by anyone at all. As I said, many stick around because nobody noticed them earlier. Fan1967 04:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK. BTW, the anonymous user seems to have been the same who added SecuraMed... :-) Please take a look at the IP address. I have seen them take this strategy before (i.e. to use WebMD as a shield for their own product). I'll remove my entry. Sorry to have caused extra work for the editors. Not my intention. I was duped by what I perceived was a legitimate entry. simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006
  • Comment I tried to delete, but I think a 'bot' undid it... If any of you know how to do it, just remove it. Thx. simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soundsystem Massive[edit]

I posted a notability prod on this article, because I see nothing in the article that indicates this group has had any notable impact on the music industry. The notability prod was removed (twice), so I have now submitted an afd. This group is nonnotable, and the article borders on patent nonsense. Charles 03:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Completely Keep - They are the best electronic band in the bay area. they represent a side not often seen by the public. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.149.3 (talk • contribs) 25 May 2006.
Comment Yes, I thought so too.--Paco650 04:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - non-notable bio/nonsense. Wickethewok 03:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From my talk page: "...They represent and have worked with a majority of the San Francisco Bay Area's local hip-hop scene (mostly as producers), and have toured in both the US and in England during their three year tenure. I think that's notable enough to deserve a wikipedia entry.""--Paco650 03:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Soundsystem Massive will probably eventually finish a real album." Kind of says it all. Fan1967 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I thought so too.--Charles 03:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you look at the page again, you will see that Paco650 has now changed the "will probably eventually finish a real album" line to sound less ambiguous, apparently hoping that will save the article. --Charles 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed I did. After a quick phone call consisting of "Will you ever finish Scud Messiah?" and "Yeah we will. We're working on it right now. Bye", it has been determined they will finish at least that album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paco650 (talk • contribs) 25 May 2006.
Comment Great, glad to hear it. When they do, and it gets released, and people actually buy it, feel free to come back and create an article about them. Fan1967 04:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly NN and they admit as much in the article. Devotchka 04:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain but if it is decided that these dudes are notable enough to keep, it needs a serious de-povving first. THE KING 04:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. looks like nonsense here mellery 04:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Fan1967 --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as seriously NN, and the next thing to spurious at that. For one thing, that alleged "Soundsystem Massive in the UK" link counts in so far as the long news page to which it connects has both the words "Soundsystem" and "Massive" on it, albeit in different places; nice try there. A Google search turns up the lead hit being a Myspace page (with the headline "I have a huge cock and you don't") and there are all of three relevant hits. RGTraynor 05:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you want more interesting reading, here's the LiveJournals for the principals, who seems to be 19 year old college students. (links deleted) Somehow I doubt they've spent the last three years touring the UK or being producers in the hip-hop scene. RGTraynor 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please do not post semi-private journals here. It hardly seems appropriate.--Paco650 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, plus my LexisNexis search of "Soundsystem Massive" in Major Newspapers for the past 2 years yielded zero results. Zepheus 05:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is full of people who can't take a joke. It disturbs me to think that you people are responsible for this site. p.s., We've never toured the UK. We're just two kids making music and helping others produce theirs. Just thought I'd clear that up. :'( --Paco650 06:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - No, actually, Wikipedia's full of people who are on the serious business of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia. One wonders what your reaction would be if your employer bounced your checks and then claimed you couldn't "take a joke," or if your professors flunked you out and then claimed you couldn't "take a joke." Possibly you wouldn't respond with cheerful laughter, but then few people do when the joke's on them. RGTraynor 06:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't talking about my professors or my employer. I was talking about uptight wiki-editors and an "encyclopedia" that is both a running joke and an unacceptable source of information at my college's newspaper and with the student body in general.--Paco650 01:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In good part because of people such as yourself.... Wickethewok 01:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paco650, please do not trash the article just because you don't like the way the AfD discussion is going. Paddles 12:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Not sure about the notability question, but the article is horribly POV, horribly unencyclopedic, and most likely vanity. Notability is difficult in the underground music scene, if there are a couple of articles in the street press or something then I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on condition that the article has a major rewrite. Otherwise, delete without prejudice, the article can be written anew in a suitable style once notability is established. Paddles 12:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom. - Nick C 13:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Avi 15:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- FRCP11 15:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then degauss the disk sectors that previously stored this garbage. it's the only way to be sure. -- GWO
  • Delete for non-notability, though the section titled "Definitely Notable" was a nice touch. I eagerly await the album from Sound System Definitely Notable. -- Docether 19:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable vanity page Bwithh 05:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Have a look at this. --Conti|✉ 02:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Very interesting. Thanks for the link, Conti. ---Charles 06:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And people wonder why its hard to believe that articles such as this are created in "good faith"... Wickethewok 02:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are legitimate musicians with quite a bit of notability within their scene. The article's a bit ridiculous, so keep on the condition that someone besides the members of Soundsystem Massive rewrites it.--172.191.118.191 23:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You mean the same bunch that says on Paco's own talk page "It was all a ruse"? Why are you still bothering? RGTraynor


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. There a couple of suggestions to Transwiki; the necessary history undeletion can be requested on DRV if someone really wants to do that. -Splashtalk 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of proper nouns containing an exclamation mark[edit]

The initial keep result for this article at its first AfD was contested at DRV. A very messy sequence of events ensued involving an out-of-process deletion (and reopening, and reclosing, of the first debate.) The confusing result was judged by DRV consensus to be in error. Please begin debate here afresh, concerned only with the merits or demerits of the article. This is a procedural renomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Shall we make a list of hyphenated words next? -- stubblyhead | T/c 04:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To repeat what I said at the DRV, this page meets the basic standard of usefulness. Lists are useful for conducting research, e.g. on the topic of why entities choose to add exclamation points to trademarks. For instance, why was Dare (album) released as "Dare!" in the U.S. and "Dare" elsewhere? A list is the best way to organize this information because it maintains its availability for those who are interested and does not intrude upon other pages. Presuming that our policies are directed at creating a useful reference work, it's hard to imagine that they are intended to cause us to delete useful pages such as this. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are so many proper nouns that this doesn't seem maintainable or encyclopedic. I don't think this is quite as useful as Mr. Parham does. Wickethewok 04:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reposting my comments in the previous afd: "I think, first and foremost, the criteria for keeping a list like this should be based on its utility. What useful purpose can this list serve? Pondered and rejected...." I have yet to see a good basis and I don't see how this indiscriminate list would help in determining the research question above. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!!!!. as stated above, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. JohnM4402 05:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, listcruft. --Terence Ong 05:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! per above. Like other editors, I cannot fathom how this could be useful. RGTraynor 05:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • De!ete. Illustrates no trend, contains no useful information, is not useful as a navigation aid. Totally useless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!! because the search engine is not adequate to provide results for this important aspect of punctuation in film!! - GilliamJF 07:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Quick note - I deleted the article last time it was on AfD because whoever relisted it didn't remove it from the first day's AfD page it was on. At the time I came across the original AfD, it was 9 days old, and had something like 26 users supporting deletion, and 5 not. Not a tough call at all. But anyway. Delete this, as it fails WP:NOT, and is pointless listcruft. Proto||type 07:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and quickly!. What complete and utter rubbish. That list could eventually devour the entire internet, as there are so many things one could put on it. Just delete. Wikipedia is not a junkyard.Moreschi 10:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! per above. WP 11:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic and useless list. Angr (t • c) 11:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unuseful to have all this indiscriminate information lumped together, it's quite random and unmanageable. -- Francs2000 11:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic and unmaintainable listcruft. Paddles 12:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't buy the arguments about why this list would be useful. To use Christopher Parham's example, if I wanted to know why the album "Dare" had different names in the US and elsewhere, I'd go look at the article Dare (album), not this list. What purpose does this list serve? When do I ask the question: "what are all the proper nouns that contain an exclamation mark"? I can't think of a realistic answer to that. If you really need the information then proper use of a search engine can generate it. This list is so inherently unmaintainable that it actually gives you a false answer. It can never be useful. Gwernol 13:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unency!opedic !ist. ScottW 13:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Nick C 13:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to a Wiktionary Appendix and delete from Wikipedia. To the extent that this content has use, it is to answer questions which are much more lexical than encyclopedic. Wiktionarians tend to have better tools and processes to validate the appropriateness of individual entries than we do. I'm okay with leaving a cross-wiki redirect behind it that would help users find it in the correct project. Rossami (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Nope! Not convinced! Other than an indiscriminate list having a punctuation mark as commonality, there's no actual information with this entry.--Brother William 14:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE per Brother William, WP:NOT and the fact that it just greases up the ol' slope for the next, even less encyclopedic, thing to slip down...how about List of proper nouns containing a tilde, List of proper nouns containing a accute accent, List of proper nouns containing a diaeresis or my personal favorite, List of proper nouns beginning with a capital letter.--WilliamThweatt 15:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE as per above reasons. Retarded. MiracleMat 15:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gwernol makes the argument. Tyrenius 17:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty simply, it's unencyclopedic listcruft. -- Kicking222 18:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and the point made per WilliamThweatt. 23skidoo 19:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per wickethewok. --Aleph-4 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are many things Wiki is not. The war against listcruft may never be won, but the battle can still continue. Wiki is not a dumping ground for articles which have no valid informative reason for existance. There is nothing new, nothing reasonable, nothing of encyclopedic value or worth, contained in this list. doktorb | words 21:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not only idiotic in concept, but also inaccurate. Bwithh 21:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 22:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. "Usefulness" is irrelevant. A list of movie playtimes in cities across California tonight is immensely useful. Literally thousands could benefit from it. This is an encyclopedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • De!ete. This page meets the basic standard of uselessness, being a large, essentially random, list of things with a minor characteristic in common. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!!! Pavel Vozenilek 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¡Delete!, just wanted to do that. Nah, per WilliamThweatt. – Elisson • Talk 20:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki! to a Wiktionary Appendix as per Rossami. Christopher Parham and GilliamJF have explained how this list is useful. It should at least be kept as an appendix. Buttle 07:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at least transwiki to Wiktionary. This is information which cannot be found with the search engine. Alphonze 04:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it does not seem to have encyclopedic merit, I suggest taking it over to wikitionary where it could probably be reformatted into a list with definitions (assuming wiktionary does such things). Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! useful list.  Grue  17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete interesting but unencyclopedic. As stated above, there might be a place for this is in wiktionary, but I'm not to familiar with their policies. Cool3 19:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Reyk YO! 07:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as yet another unmaintainable, unencyclopaedic list, Usrnme h8er 14:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's hard to see how this list can be made complete enough to be useful as a reference. Espresso Addict 19:44, 31 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. -Splashtalk 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindomar[edit]

A speedy request that i'm not sure of. Tawker 03:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 200.000 people in his community are enough -Ilhador-
  • If it's going to be kept, it needs to be cleaned up in a serious way, particularly the end. Abstain for now. Devotchka 04:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see any real sources here that help enforce this as a major internet fad. Wickethewok 04:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I get over 18000 Ghits [4]. Though they're mostly in Portuguese, they seem relevant. Fan1967 05:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing to prove notability. I'd like more evidence than hits we can't understand seeming to be relevant. RGTraynor 05:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Interestingly I found this one, from Portuguese Wikipedia [5], including the same picture. Fan1967 05:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. At most, it is a 3 month phenomenon. Ted 05:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 05:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the author. Lindomar is indeed a significant internet fad in Brazil, you can see the numbers in the article and confirm them by searching Orkut. I think searching Orkut and getting big numbers provides enough verifiability. There are also many webpages (including blogs) about him, as told by Google. Also see the talk page for my other arguments. If you want cleanup, do it yourself, or say exactly what is the problem, and I'll do it. I have already read some Wikipedia guidelines in Wikipedia and I think the article is OK. As someone has already pointed, I reused the photo from the Portuguese wikipedia, but I did not write that article (though I edited it to make it less messy, though it is still messy) nor based this one in that one. I based the article from the communities in Orkut and in the "Diário de Pernambuco" that you can see in the references. Jorge 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No citations of sources. - Nick C 14:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google™ Avi 15:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Notable. I already forgot what we were talking about. MiracleMat 15:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not for English wiki, even if it's suitable for Portugese one. Tyrenius 17:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If it's suitable for the Portugese one, I don't see why it's not for the English wiki if Wikipedia is supposed to represent a global view. deadkid_dk 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per my comment above. deadkid_dk 18:20, 27 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 11:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small Shoes[edit]

This page's content is entirely unencyclopedic. It seems simply to be a placeholder for spam. It was prodded by me, and then de-prodded by a different editor with th e comment "Object; prefer merge". I have no idea where this would be merged to. You will also note that most of the links are to pages which give shoe sizes, not ones which discuss the "phenomenon" of small shoes. Delete Mak (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Charles 03:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pretty pointless list clearly put together by someone who has a foot fetish or something. Can be summed up as "some people have small feet and need small shoes. women with feet under a size 5 cannot buy shoes in women's sizes most of the time." Very unencyclopedic. Devotchka 04:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is not an encyclapedic article but rather an essay on small feet.Deathawk 04:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure nonsense JohnM4402 04:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam -- Samir धर्म 06:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Nick C 14:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it was an article looking at the way footware has increased in size over the centuries then it might be of interest. As it is it really serves no purpose.--Brother William 14:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 15:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful content into Shoe. — RJH (talk) 15:18, 25 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. -Splashtalk 21:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Tuthill[edit]

Contested speedy, may have some notability, but seriously needs a cleanup Tawker 03:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think it's a hoax based on the idea of "the best thing since sliced bread". "Howard Tuthill" with "bread" brings up two Google hits, both unrelated. I'd say it should be a speedy, really. Devotchka 04:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Comment -- I searched for referenced to Howard Tuthill and Oliver Machinery. The only thing i could find was East Grand Rapids, Michigan which lists him, but beyond that, no ghits. Not sure if its a joke or not, as the link in that article appears to be independently added by User:24.11.129.179. This users edits (all three of them) seems to be of an experimental and somewhat vandalistic nature. Tough to say if this is a real person or not, but at the very least, this person appears to be a nn-bio. joshbuddytalk 04:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 05:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the grandson of Howard Tuthill and know it to be true, I am fourth generation family owner. These are all facts. I can be reached via email, jgreen@oliverproducts.com, this link will give you some further information. V.M. Tuthill was Howard Tuthill's father. http://www.owwm.com/Oliver/History.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadslicers (talk • contribs)
  • Comment You added this while I was still writing my vote (below). The link doesn't verify the bulk of the article, and "it's true because I say it's true" is not sufficient for WP because it's not verifiable. The article also needs some work, it doesn't sound encyclopedic at the moment. Paddles 13:08, 25 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 Prodego talk 21:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquygen[edit]

Noteable It seems to me that Aquygen deserves mention, if nothing else. I do not personally believe that "it has to be a hoax" qualifies this article's deletion. It may, if not worded correctly, constitute the disputability of the factuality of the article, however it does desirve mention. If the so called "fact" of the matter that this article is claimed as a hoax by those who are, for lack of a better description, biased ensures its deletion, shouldn't the article on cold fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion) be deleted/removed as well? What is happening here is that some people feel that it is their duty to subvert any possible hoax rather than allow the mention of notable happenings in our modern time; a hoax is also worthy mention, at the very least as a stub. Xeromem 05:43, 1 Nov 2006 (UTC)

KEEP I am just reporting information here people! Thats all!! So why dont you just delete the article if you are so offended by the scientific information.. Fact is, the US Army and CREDIBLE Sources are looking into the technology. You can view a video produced by FOX news and CNN and other news sources on the Website. Its not pseudoscience. It is a scientific fact that you can verify by contacting Hydrogen Technology Application Inc. They are based in Clearwater Florida. They will provide you with samples which you can take to any Lab in the country to verify. boyohio02 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Some kind of pseudoscience-cum-investment-scam that clocks up 100 unique ghits. Mentioned in the news once, apart from that citations are mostly confined to blogs. Not in the same league as mucoid plaque or Blacklight Power, I'm afraid. Dr Zak 03:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now up to 135 unique ghits. Boy, there is some serious forum spamming going on. Dr Zak 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, doesn't seem to be backed up by verifiable sources, psuedo-science cruft Hobbeslover 03:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other users should know that this user Hobbeslover participates in article for deletion discussions all the time (user contributions) and almost always votes in favor of delete (only one that i looked at, out of dozens, was not delete, it was merge). And also I find nothing in his history that suggests he has any experience editting fuel related articles on wikipedia. Seems like a biased delete-first user. --MateoP 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN. Devotchka 04:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perpetual energy nonsense. THE KING 04:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourced and notable JohnM4402 05:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a vote. Please show us sources and prove why it is, in fact, notable. Devotchka 05:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh brother, what next?! --Charles 05:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I gets zero hits on Google Scholar. Ted 05:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly all drug companies wait for a patent before publishing the results of their research. Choven
  • Delete not notable, unsourced, reeks of scam -- Samir धर्म 06:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, unencyclopedic, most probaly a hoax. --Terence Ong 06:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I did happen to find a November 27, 2005 article from the Tampa Tribune on this topic. There's even a picture, but it still doesn't seem notable at this point. Zepheus 06:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is the report is that I came across. Seems the company is handing out another round of press releases right now, which causes it to bubble up again for a few days. Dr Zak 13:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to verifiability and low Google score. Good luck though, that would be awesome if it works. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Hobbeslover and others. Smells like a hoax. Two general media articles is not enough to establish notability, mass media have fallen for similar hoaxes before. Paddles 13:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google™ Avi 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wrote the article after seeing it on the local news. It exists. Whether it is real science or not is pretty irrelevant. Creationism has an article. The article notes that some people are skeptical of the claims. This is usually delete-happy wikipedia B.S. --MateoP 22:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I suggest moving this information (in altered/shortened form) to the Alternative fuel page. There is a category for hydrogen that I think this fits under. The links to the Hydrogen Technology Applications website and news articles [6][7] can be put there if neccessary. I believe this "fuel" exists, but this Aquygen page is probably a little premature. Zepheus 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable/NN. First, searched ChemFinder and found no results. Then, searched through AcademicSearchElite and found an obscure molecular physics study about photofragmentation of H20 and D20, but I think the "HHO geometry" refers not to a compound that is different than water, but a physical arrangement of the atoms that compose water (Title: Photodissociation of Water. II. Wave Packet Calculations for the Photofragmentation of H2O and D2O in the B- band" by Harrevelt and van Hemert. Also, a side note: Article is dated April 1, 2000. Published in the Journal of Chemical Physics). One article in particular, "Pseudoscience today, theater lighting controls, and more" made it sound like HHO is just a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen (2 parts) and oxygen (one part), not a chemical compound with the formula HHO (which is WATER, people!).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt Yohe (talk • contribs) . 01:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BS. Water is a liquid. Water vapor is a gas. Water vapor cannot bore holes through charcoal. HHO gas is a gas. Use your eyes not your mouth (Ethics 101). VIDEO (Houston FOX26): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX6CnNc3CFU&search=aquygen VIDEO2:http://www.wave3.com/Global/Video/WorldnowASX.asp?os=&vt=v&clipid=806337 GOOGLE NEWS: http://news.google.com/news?q=aquygen Kmarinas86 23:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another of the articles which cries out for a process wherein they can be "pended" and reviewed after 6 months, to see whether they have lasting encyc. value -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone added a video of a recent report by CNN. Is that a "notable" enough news organization for the deleteaholic wikipedians here? Whether or not this fuel is what they say it is isn't relevant to whether or not it should have an article. --MateoP 04:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP If it is a hoax it still diserves an article --The_stuart 01:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should either be deleted or include a reference to the criticisms common to all Brown's gas variants. -RydDragyn
  • Like many here, I've been searching/collecting links to material on Aquygen. http://aquygen.blogspot.com/ While the validity of the claims is not yet established, it seems even if they turn out false, a wikipedia article is warranted if only to say so.
  • Delete for non-notability. 205.179.22.178 20:49, 31 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 and redirect to VALIS. --bainer (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Iron Prison[edit]

This is, irreparably, the author's POV. It may or may not be a valid philosophical concept, but it is the author's view of the universe. It's not provable or disprovable, at least by Wikipedia methods (i.e., looking it up). The only nonoriginal element is the reference from the Philip K. Dick story, which I don't think is notable by itself. NawlinWiki 04:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I've looked it over and it's pretty POV and sort of incomprehensible. If someone wanted to write an article on the concept, that would be okay--this is not that. Devotchka 04:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. That is really fascinating in its incomprehensability! He has some interesting things to say, and I do not necessarily disagree with him, but it is not the least bit encyclopaedic. --Charles 05:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comment below. --Charles 17:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR. Ravenswing 05:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete NOR Wombdpsw 05:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like original research because it doesn't cite any sources. Cheers. --Starionwolf 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, POV fork. --Terence Ong 06:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: this is word salad. Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR Avi 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Am struggling with this article a little, partly because it's my first one and partly because the concept is rather involved. A little understanding would be greatly appreciated. I appreciate that it is not particularly well-written at this stage. Will amend article and start again... Horselover Fat 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What are your grounds for claiming the article should be kept? Ravenswing 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Prior versions of the article did not at all make it clear that this was a fictional concept from the writings of Philip K. Dick. The text now at the article may be very different from the text once read. Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just misses several speedy criterion. I can't make any sense of this. No prejudice against a real article about this concept. Grandmasterka 05:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to VALIS or Exegesis (book). "Black Iron Prison" is synonymous with the demiurge and is a notable search term related to the Gnosticism of Philip K. Dick, but does not currently require a separate article. I'm a little embarrassed by the comments made by others above, as they are so off the mark. Yes, AfD is completely broken and needs to be fixed--thanks for reminding me. —Viriditas | Talk 11:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article shows notable improvement, and I agree with the merger proposed by Viriditas. --Charles 17:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Article has improved, so merge per Viriditas. - CNichols 19:34, 30 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 11:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelles Frazier[edit]

Delete - non-notable, vanity article. Zero Google hits. Fabricationary 05:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed. Amateur NN wrestler does not an entry make. Devotchka 05:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Charles 05:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Yeah, right. The only G-hit for his "stage name" is the Myspace page of a 14 year old girl. There are no hits for his alleged wrestling name, and he's not to be found on the NWA Upstate roster, past or present, as he claims. This is probably spurious top to bottom. RGTraynor 06:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he lied about having been in the NWA, does the page technically fall under the hoax category? If so, can it be speedied? Doesn't seem worthwhile to waste time on this guy. Devotchka 05:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax is not a speedy category. Fan1967 06:00, 25 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 11:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Robert Young[edit]

Non-notable non-medical doctor who wrote a book and some articles regarding alternative medicine[8]. Medtopic 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable -- Samir धर्म 06:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 06:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I be given the opportunity to redevelop this article in a non-biased, common-sense manner. There are many people who will be searching for this person on Wikipedia and thus they should be presented with a factual description of who he is and what he does. Editors perceptions and beliefs about natural health should not cloud judgement as to whether a biographic entry is worthwhile. ----Dimitarberbatov 07:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Interesting edit history. Looks like the article was originally an ad, now more of an attack page. Either way, guys like this with some new health theory are kind of a dime a dozen. Fan1967 14:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google™ Avi 15:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. B.Wind 22:57, 28 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 11:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Satyavant M. Mallanna[edit]

Non-notable. Not verifiable. Medtopic 06:17, 25 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. bainer (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Freedman (Magician)[edit]

Closer's notes
The comments of two very new users (Humbledof and Oldadder) were disregarded. Both users had made their only edits to either this AfD or the page being debated.

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Humbledof (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment no vote here, but this was nominated before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Freedman) with no consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep THE KING 10:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but currently needs a severe rewrite to be less of a vanity press release. -- FRCP11 12:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup required. Some of the information is vanity and/or unverifiable, but the Ghits and IMDB article support notability. Paddles 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i'm satisfied with notability, but the article is pretty un-encyclopedic in tone. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies notability, but cleanup per above Teke 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as vanity (note originator of article). Mr. Freedman is notable enough, but as an advertisement (in addition to vanity), it might be best to scrape clean and start anew. B.Wind 23:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete vanity, a few verified facts amongst many unverified --Oldadder 18:40, 29 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 this bull. Mailer Diablo 11:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullz[edit]

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Deprodded. Weregerbil 06:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nor is it a place for things made up in school yesterday. Delete. THE KING 06:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NFT, WP:NOT. --Terence Ong 06:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Pastafarian Nights 07:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --Scott 10:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and KING. Paddles 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary--Jusjih 13:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chicago Bulls. — RJH (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do not delete, i think it is very informative and educational. It keeps me in touch with the youth of today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.80.85 (talk • contribs) — The previous text was left on the AfD's talk page, I have moved it here as a courtesy and prod'd the talk page. This does not alter my own delete vote. Paddles 00:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki to Urban Dictionary. Wes! &#149; Tc 01:32, 30 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 InShaneee. -- JLaTondre 23:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious and philosophical views of suicide[edit]

This page is a combination of two other articles. The merge was discussed on the talk page and it was agreed that the information be moved out, which it has, and this article deleted.--Joe Jklin (T C) 06:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Terence Ong 06:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with suicide, and delete. -- SwissCelt 12:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paddles 13:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment is merge and delete compatible with GFDL? Wouldn't merge and redirect be a more suitable step? Andjam 15:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose a redirect would work as well. The only question is which of the two articles should there be a redirect to? By the way all merging has been done here and here.--Joe Jklin (T C) 21:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above. Tyrenius 17:54, 25 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 11:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. William H. Stewart[edit]

Does not meet WP:PROFTEST guidelines. Medtopic 06:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless external references can be provided.--Brother William 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "foreleading expert of Alabama politics"? Delete BuckRose 17:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Notable. Hummer's Oddyssey? Dlyons493 Talk 20:01, 25 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. -Splashtalk 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. William J. Takacs[edit]

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:PROFTEST guidelines. Possible vanity. Medtopic 06:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn--Jusjih 13:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. True, he doesn't meet WP:PROFTEST, but he seems to be more a musician than a professor, and he seems to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria of "Has won or placed in a major music competition.", with: "Takacs has won numerous competitions, including the 1999 National Trumpet Competition at George Mason University in Washington D.C., and was one of five semifinalists selected worldwide to participate in the 2000 Ellsworth Smith International Trumpet Competition held in Bad Säckingen, Germany, sponsored by the International Trumpet Guild." Unfortunately, I don't know much about Trumpet, so don't know if how "major" those are, but they sound from the names as if they would qualify. (That's why this is only a weak keep - someone who knows more about trumpet can easily convince me one way or another.) AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He also seems to meet WP:MUSIC "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" with "He performed as guest principal trumpet for the New Sigmund Romberg Orchestra's 1999 performance tour of Taiwan and the Orquesta Sinfónica de Trujillo (Peru)." Take out the weak, make it a real keep. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd suggest a merge with Amarillo Symphony Orchestra if there was an article but otherwise non-notable (one of the links is an advertisement for a brand of trumpet)--Brother William 14:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:AnonEMouse, meets WP:MUSIC requirements. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonEMouse. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonEMouse. He is sufficiently notable for inclusion in WP even if he is not world-famous. Ande B 20:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per AnonEMouse M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikify and keep - if this had the proper formatting, the article would not be here. B.Wind 23:06, 28 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 11:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionator[edit]

Seems non-notable Computerjoe's talk 06:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 06:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. Non-notable, seems like vanity: author credited on page (w/copyright notice) is main contributer. Pastafarian Nights 07:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 950 Ghits--Jusjih 13:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paddles 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only slightly more than 1,000 GHits. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:22, 28 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 11:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redrapper[edit]

No reliable sources have been provided to establish notability -- it's all blogs, and forum posts. - Motor (talk) 06:56, 25 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 11:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Financial_Autonomous_Zone[edit]

Copyright and NPOV. It's almost identical to this: The Transitioner The text on the linked page is shown in quotes. Pastafarian Nights 07:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • note that this is not Copyvio - the link appears to be a wiki mirror to approx [this version]. Peripitus 09:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cannot find either the book or author on amazon and google books returns no [hits]. no notability for the book, author and hence a term from the book - Peripitus 09:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn book. --Terence Ong 09:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 193 Ghits--Jusjih 13:26, 25 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 deleted as recreation of previously deleted article. Capitalistroadster 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Wanderer[edit]

Fictional fiction from the Empire, a faction in the Warhammer Fantasy fictional universe. The article is a text replication of the fictional nursery rhyme, with a single line of context (stating that it is a nursery tale from an unspecified Empire, and the tune (which is named after a region in the Warhammer Empire)

It has been suggested that this text be copied to Wikisource, but I oppose this as I believe (but am not certain) that the text is copyright to Games Workshop, and it is printed in one of their army rulebooks (I think the most recent edition of Beasts of Chaos, but do not have the book to confirm. -- saberwyn 07:21, 25 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. Yanksox 14:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh[edit]

Finishing off incomplete Afd by Bnguyen - no vote by me until I've had some time to consider the article Peripitus 09:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak DeleteWeak Keep - only [26] hits on google of which many are mirrors or the vietnamese wiki. Maybe some of our vietnamese wikipedians can help as I may be missing notability based on the name order - Peripitus 09:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC). A bit more searching. His family is certainly notable but I'm still lost on finding him Peripitus 09:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I am not Vietnamese, but I am old enough to remember the war, and to have served during it, I believe that his post-war activities make him notable. I don't really care for the Google test. Bejnar 16:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep works for me Teke 23:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I believe he is (barely) notable enough. But the article could use some work to make it sound better when read. Picaroon9288 03:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notable enough for me. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:23, 28 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 to Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon. TerenceOng's rather summary dismissal doesn't really help a great deal, but the analysis by the other two editors is more useful. This seems like a harmless enough redirect, and there's little reason to simply retain content that contains established errors when error-free content is available elsewhere. -Splashtalk 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Canon[edit]

duplication of Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon Lima 08:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC) - By "duplication" I of course mean "dealing with the same matter", not "a carbon copy" Lima 15:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, not a duplicate. --Terence Ong 09:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect It's not a word-for-word duplication, but there is major overlap. The English translations in Roman Canon could be a useful addition to Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon, but the latter article contains most of the useful content. In fact, once the articles have been merged, I'd be inclined to rename the merged article as "Roman Canon". Paddles 13:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment By "duplication" I did not, of course, mean "copy". The full Latin text with English translation is already in Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon, one free from errors found in the Roman Canon article such as "is being shed" (in Latin, "effunditur"), as a translation of "effundetur" (will be shed), and "do" (in Latin, "facite") as a translation of "facietis" (you will do) in the phrase "do this in memory of Me". If in addition to the full text given in each section described a continuous text of the whole Canon were desired, a link to any of several websites would be enough. In short, what valid material is there to merge into the article that "contains most of the useful content"? (As for the quite separate question of renaming, we would have to consider also the candidacy of Canon of the Mass, with which most other articles link at present.) - I see now that I forgot to sign. Sorry. Lima 15:28, 25 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. -Splashtalk 21:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Fakruddin of Penukonda[edit]

It appears to be a messier duplicate of Baba Fakruddin. I suggested a merge/redirect, but the editor who created the article removed it. - Motor (talk) 08:36, 25 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. Mailer Diablo 11:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallvard Eika[edit]

Non-notable. Terribly hard to expand, as I couldn't find any books or informational websites. Chuck(척뉴넘) 09:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, he was formerly a Minister in Sweden, definitely notable in its own right, "terribly hard to expand" is not a reason to delete the article. --Terence Ong 09:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Terence Ong Crazynas 11:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Terence Ong (although it was Norway); published author as well as notable pol. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep info on him is mostly in Norwegian, but we have many Norwegian Wikipedians so it isn't really a problem. --Eivindt@c 11:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Terence Ong. Cvene64 13:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Eivind. Paddles 13:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the comments by Terence Ong. Yamaguchi先生 01:23, 26 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 deleted and recreated as a shortcut to Lieutenant. If the band makes it big later then this should be reconsidered. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leftenant[edit]

non notable band per Wikipedia:Notability (music) - Gimboid13 10:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable --Scott 10:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - MySpace does not equal notability. Seb Patrick 10:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but many unsigned bands get "Myspace muscles" and try anyway. PJM 12:14, 25 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. Flowerparty☀ 05:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FUCCUP[edit]

I speedied this as vandalism on the basis of the name and the fact that the only "verification" of it is a blog, which isn't considered a reliable source. But the creator protested, saying "It wasn't vandalism! It's a real conference!" and another user convinced me on my talk page to undelete it. But I'm still not convinced it's notable enough for an encyclopedia, especially not with any reliable sources for verifiability. Perhaps speedying was too hasty, but I still say delete. Angr (t • c) 10:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. Crazynas 11:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources. Also needs to explain notability, such as major media coverage. Best done after the event per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Any meeting of friends or collegues is not encyclopedic. Now I'm off to BARBOOZE 2006 with a couple of mates. Weregerbil 11:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, unverifiable, nn. --Terence Ong 11:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • this is not correct. The event is quite verifyable per linked external sites. Also see [[10]]--Mmounties (Talk) 14:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. --Strothra 13:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Paddles 13:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google™ Avi 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a quick google search didn't verify the notability of the text in the article. --Supercoop 20:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an annual event, typically attended by 100+ student journalists, some of whom go on to become high-profile professional journalists. See http://cup.ca/spin/ for information about the 68th national conference, which took place in January 2006 and some of the speakers there. And the site http://fuccup69.blogspot.com/ , while a blog, is an official one. TruthbringerToronto 06:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This fits right in with other articles about annual conferences we have. Just do a search for student conferences and you come up with plenty similarly notable, all covered with articles in our encyclopedia (see Canadian Undergraduate Technology Conference, WSC, Queer Collaborations and many, many others.]] --Mmounties (Talk) 14:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this reads like parody and/or nonsense. ("With any luck, there will be no weapons at FUCCUP 69.") If it's kept, extensive rewriting is needed to render it encyclopedic. B.Wind 23:13, 28 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 11:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relationtainment[edit]

Originally proposed for deletion, but the article creator modified the wording of the prod [11]. All thought it is not clear, it could be interpreted as a contest to the deletion and there for comes to AfD. Original prod was "WP:NEO. Is a neologism, with non verified usage and only has one hit on google" and for clarity here is the google search. blue520 10:49, 25 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 11:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studio JFISH[edit]

  • Delete: Vanity article about non-notable comic studio. Only 17 unique Google hits which all appear to be self-added. Prod removed by anon without explanation. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crazynas 11:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delelte per nom. JPD (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanispamcruftisment, nn. --Terence Ong 11:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Francs2000 11:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 530 Ghits--Jusjih 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paddles 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before my entry is completely deleted, please see the conversation that is being held User_talk:Studio_JFISH here. I feel that I do meet the standards for my article to stay, I just believe that no one quite understands yet that I do have noteable recommendations. As for the Google hits, Jusjih, just how many Google hits does something need in order to be fit to stay on Wikipedia? If it's a much higher amount I can take that and wait until I reach such a position. I guess I'm a little suprised that I do not have the qualifications to stay. Thanks to those who might look into it, --Studio JFISH 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The number of Ghits can sometimes be a useful indicator, but it's really more about the quality of the Ghits. For example, 2 or 3 Ghits from reputable media sites counts for more than 2000 Ghits from myspace pages and other blogs, in my view. Paddles 14:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Concerning "your" entry, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography.--Aleph-4 18:53, 25 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. Flowerparty☀ 05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owais Qadri[edit]

Contested PROD. No verifiability, barely asserts notability. Delete. Angr (t • c) 11:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable, apparent vanity. --DDG 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's cut and paste from [12] so presumably copyvio Dlyons493 Talk 20:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only 143 results? i'm not sure if its copyvio since there's no copyright info on the source, but whatever. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything is copyrighted unless there is a specific reason why it isn't (public domain because it's a work of the U.S. Federal Government, or because the author died more than 70 years ago, or because it was first published in the U.S. before 1923, etc.). Lack of a © symbol and/or the word "Copyright" doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. Angr (talk) 20:13, 28 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. Flowerparty☀ 05:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jonestown Carnage[edit]

Article does not establish notability of the book ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article has been around a while and a number of editors have worked on it. Someone put it up for speedy, that didn't seem right to me so I have nominated it for AfD. I have no opinion about it other than that notability is not yet established. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have contributed extensively to this article and I believe that notability has been established according to Wikipedia's policy. I have included several links to major local publications (Mainly The Savannah Daily News) and the band's debut album (High Impendence Of Super Horse, 2005)was voted as one of the best albums of the year according to Georgia Music magazine. The band has been together for over 12 years and is a well known "undreground" indie rock band (The links to The Savannah Daily News will verify my claim).

I vote for this article to stay. >+</19 May 2006 (UTC) User = Meanax

    • Comment I struck through Meanax's above comments, as they were posted for the wrong AfD. I, myself, have no particular opinion one way or the other on this page. -- Kicking222 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – but notability needs to be established – Gurch 13:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is established, i.e. sources showing it has a circulation of 5000+. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit to note that the book's assertions are controversial. It is a controversial book about a notable subject. We can afford to keep this kind of article, as long as we edit to let everyone know that the book is not considered authoritative.
See also Talk:The Jonestown Carnage. The book discussed by the article (if it actually exists, and whether or not it has a circulation of 5000+) is very interesting evidence of late 1980s propaganda techniques used by the Soviet Union, and is therefore of a lot more historical interest than the many articles about minor characters on teevee shows and in video games that are allowed on wikipedia. --arkuat (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As article stands, no evidence of notability, and just a recounting of a minor conspiracy theory that apparently didn't even merit rebuttal. -- FRCP11 12:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am relisting this article as no consensus has been reached, I find it difficult to call a consensus of "no consensus" from just four votes. Rje 11:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no apparent notability, not even as an example of Soviet propaganda. All it needs is a mention somewhere in an article on Soviet propaganda, as it seems to have had a negligible impact. Sandstein 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but verify. Going to the bother of translation suggests notability. Andjam 15:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for book reports, and is most likely OR Teke 23:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Peoples Temple - tremendous overlap between the two (maybe by the same author?). Merging will reduce the advertising/copyvio of the nominated article. B.Wind 23:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep borderline notable.  Grue  17:13, 29 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. This debate is evidently not a deleting one, even if I lob some sand at Dpbsmith. Some related comments can be found in my closure statement for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks Kubik (second nomination). -Splashtalk 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Training[edit]

NN, probable vanity; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks Kubik (second nomination) -- FRCP11 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of NN:

Google Books search on exact phrase "dinosaur training" gives five hits: three irrelevant, one inaccessible. However, the first hit is Ironman Magazine (2000). Ironman's Ultimate Guide To Building Muscle Mass. McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 0809228130. p. 215: "Dinosaur training is all about heavy poundages and working hard..." The chapter is by Brooks Kubik. However, the fact that it appears in a print book by a legitimate publisher, under the auspices what I believe to be a legitimate physical-culture magazine, gives some credibility to its being a recognized concept. (By the way, a single hit in Google Books is not negligible, though I'd rather see half-a-dozen to a dozen. For comparison, exact phrase "Charles Atlas" gets 1200 hits in 100 books).
Re vanity: both this article and Brooks Kubik were created by User:Tjic. Based on his user page and other contributions, I would be very surprised if Tjic were Brooks Kubik himself or even a close associate, and these contributions and his other contributions does not follow the typical pattern of the pitbull self-promoter who thinks he can use Wikipedia for free advertising or building website traffic. Furthermore, the original Tjic text as well as subsequent edits are completely free from promotional or hucksterish language. So, I don't see vanity, though I do see a question of how recognized and important this is in the muscle-building community. (To which I don't belong).
Hmmm... Google Groups [13] gets 194 hits, borderline. I like Groups because it's less influenced by "search engine optimization" and other techniques for inflating web hits; under ordinary circumstances, Groups gets 1/4 to 1/10 the number of hit as a web search. On the face of it, when I read the content of the Group hits suggest that it is a real method, with some degree of real interest, but not very famous or well-known. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ok, not vanity. But non-notable chapter in non-notable book doesn't add up to notability. -- FRCP11 13:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I used the word "borderline." Here's yet another case of "borderline:" I'm not sure how to link this, but go to www.a9.com, select only "books", and type "brooks d. kubik" in quotations. You get the out-of-print book, the Ironman book... and allusions to Kubik by two other strength-training authors. Typing in "brooks kubik" (no d.) yields three different mentions by other writers. In other words, a handful of strength-training authors have mentioned his name in print. Tell you what: I'll change "weak keep" to something weaker. If someone kicks sand in my face I'll probably cave in altogether. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for lack of notability. -- Kicking222 19:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dr Zak 13:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems real enough but fairly marginal. If some heavily muscled individual calls to the door with a testimonial I will of course change my vote. Dlyons493 Talk 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Dinosaur Training" is fairly well known in strength training circles. I thought part of the goal of Wikipedia was to serve as a learning tool, but the standard here seems to be "non-notable, because I haven't heard of it". Does one have to be as well-known as Charles Atlas to merit an entry? And calling the book that cited Dinosaur Training non-notable seems rather weak; it was published by McGraw-Hill - not exactly self-published. Dsreyn 00:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why was the AfD for Ken Leistner pointing here? Is this a package deal - Dinosaur Training and Leistner sink or swim together? Dsreyn 00:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD for Leistner was pointing here per WP:AFD Section 6 for related articles. If you want to argue that one meets Wikipedia notability criteria and one doesn't and that they should be split up, you're welcome to split them up. I was trying to save time, because Dinosaur Training should've been included in the Brooks Kubik AfD. -- FRCP11 01:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have split the two. Saving time seems like a poor reason to combine them; Leistner and Dinosaur Training aren't directly linked (Kubik and Dinosaur Training would've been a more reasonable pairing). Dsreyn 02:32, 26 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 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freethought Association of West Michigan[edit]

Largely unverifyable advertising page (in current form) for non-notable group in West Michigan .Group returns only [322] google hits and has no reputable sites talking about them Peripitus 11:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator - Peripitus 11:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 314 Ghits--Jusjih 13:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Some notable (but unsourced) guest lecturers, but that doesn't count for much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 25 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 transwikied clear consensus to transwiki Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Peanuts: 1950 to 1952 Annotations and others[edit]

Wikipedia is not a guide to another's work. Kotepho 12:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of these pages. Actually, Wikipedia frequently serves as a guide to other people's work. See the entries on Stephen King's The Dark Tower books, and The Wheel of Time. More importantly, Wikipedia is a reference source, and people reading the Peanuts books may be confused by the cultural references. Wikipedia is the perfect tool for clarification. KXL 25 May 2006.

  • Strong Keep MarineCorps 13:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take it to wikibooks. Not suitable here. Dr Zak 13:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks, amazing bit of work, but as per Dr Zak, not suitable for Wikipedia. --Canley 13:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. The Dark Tower (series) describe the works, not annotations. I'd like a bit more info on the source of these annotations. Did you come up with them yourself? Then it's original research, which may be fine for Wikibooks, but not for Wikipedia. Did you copy them from somewhere? Then they're likely a copyright violation. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These annotations are my own (Sometimes incorporating phrases from the main Wiki articles I am linking to). I will look into Wikibooks, but I still feel that a link right by the main entry on Peanuts is the best way to do this. KXL 25 May

You can link to wikibooks from wikipedia articles, there is even a template {{wikibooks}} . Kotepho 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibooks has more on the topic of: Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 25
  • Transwiki per above. A detailed discussion of a work is not the same as annotations to a work. Brilliant piece of research, though. -- GWO
  • Transwiki per above. Hits a little too close to original research to work for the main Wikipedia. 23skidoo 19:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per above. --Starionwolf 04:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki per canley M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't know what I'm doing, but my concern is that regular users such as myself will not be able to find these great annotations if they are transfered.
  • Keep it where it is. I agree with the above guy. Even with the big grey box (which I think people don't really see), it will be too hard for folks to find. The links are right there, by the entries for the books. They are already at the most logical place.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Yanksox 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Law Society[edit]

The article makes clear what this is - a departmental social student society. Not noteworthy outside the confines of the department. Dr Zak 12:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it does. Oxford Law Society pointed out their page to us. So we thought we would follow suit. User: NWP20 1:45, 25 May 2006 (BST)
it is noteworthy outside the department. former members are huge in number,and derive from across the world. It is one of the oldest and largest societies from Cambridge University, and such a history should be recorded, acknowledged and appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.103 (talk • contribs)
The thing to do would be to provide verifiable evidence for this assertion, like reports from the local or preferably national news. Dr Zak 13:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are 38300 Ghits.--Jusjih 13:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only 94 of those are unique, though, and looking at those hits nothing says what those folks actually do. Dr Zak 13:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is noteworthy in my opinon. Cvene64 13:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well known, but I have put POV tag on, as it reads like a promo. Tyrenius 18:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the guy who first created it. I was the out-going president. I made it sound self-congratulatory because... it was my baby, right? But this is a society of prestige - I could list you twelve ex-presidents who are now HC/CA/HL judges, senior partners in noteworthy Solicitors firms or in fact give you a life story of our Honourable President - Lord Mustill. (Legend that he is). I thought the point of wiki was that anyone could add. No-one had set it up before, so I did. I'm not entirely qualified to fill all the details - but isn't the point that it will gradually grow? User:NWP20 25 May 2006 19:07 (BST)


OK - I have now edited it of ALL "bias." Any other problems with it. (I know I'm not supposed to take this personally but I am - just looked at those Googles. The story about us not paying is FALSE - journo's, grumble.--NWP20 18:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 20:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rewrite Oxbridge law societies are historically important parts of the English legal profession. This article should really focus more on history and influence than on student activities though Bwithh 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there aren't too many organizations in the world that are significantly more important than this one. - Richardcavell 23:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A poor article, but the number of distinguished former members must be quite enormous. Piccadilly 23:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite This is not just an average student society. (Although I think Richard may be putting it a bit strong) :-) Badgerpatrol 01:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments above; not an average student society. Yamaguchi先生 01:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per comments above. Give the editors a chance to improve the article. --Starionwolf 04:23, 28 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. Yanksox 14:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Law Society[edit]

Another entry on a departmental social society . As the article admits, they are known for organizing departmental balls. Not noteworthy outside the confines of the department. Dr Zak 12:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 124 Ghits--Jusjih 13:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is noteworthy imo. Cvene64 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never attended Oxford (in fact I'm an Australian) but even I've heard of them. The article itself could do with some more history though.--Brother William 14:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd support an article on the Monash Law Society but this seems even more notable than that! THE KING 14:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well known. Tyrenius 18:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Dlyons493 Talk 20:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont they study jurisprudence in oxford?

  • Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 20:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rewrite Oxbridge law societies are historically important parts of the English legal profession. This article should really focus more on history and influence than on student activities though Bwithh 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A poor article, but the number of distinguished former members must be quite enormous. His isn't a standard student society at all, but a network at the heart of the British establishment. Piccadilly 23:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. More than just an average student society, and more than just a champagne tasting club too- recent speakers according to website include e.g. Ian Blair and John Bolton. Badgerpatrol 01:16, 26 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 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The HJ Cup[edit]

Incoherant article on subject with no references I can find. New user removed speedy tag ( probably accidentally) so here it is. I cannot see that this article is either verifyable or about a notable event Peripitus 12:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I can tell from the article's talk page it's about a sporting team with disabled athletes. Still fails any test I can think of - Peripitus 13:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entry certainly has an inkblot quality to it; I'll give it that. PJM 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 28 Ghits--Jusjih 13:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The HJ cup is a well known sporting event to all teenagers in the greater South and East Sydney (Australia) areas. Games 1 and 2 had an average 2000 spectators - considering it's totally free of advertising etc. that's quite an achievement. Please leave the site up. AND STFU — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:AndyZ7 (talk • contribs)

Can you provide any sources that support what you've said? PJM 13:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator - moreover it is nonsensical and poorly written Craig451 14:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly does one source a small time fun sporting event which is occuring in real time? God. Grow some brains. Secondly, it may not be expertly written - and that's fine. It's a small testimoney as well as an informational source. ----AndyZ7
What you say doesn't make much sense. Furthermore, please "grow some manners" and don't insult others. See WP:CIVIL. Thanks. PJM 11:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is admittedly a "small time sporting event" why is it deemed worthy of an individual article? See here for information about citing sources. Also please refer to WP:NOT for a guideline on what deserves an article and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before telling people to "grow some brains". Thanks. Craig451 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't even say what sport they're playing or where. (Yes, it says "footy", but that doesn't exactly narrow it down much.) From what I can understand based on comments here and the talk page, this is an intramural rugby competition between loosely defined teams, which isn't going to be notable even if it is verifiable. --Metropolitan90 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for God's sake! Too many of these nn sporting events all over the country and elsewhere written by teenagers with terrible English skills have been popping up recently. SM247 00:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You moderators are all worse than Hitler...How am i going to explain this to the kids. Josh Brown tried to access this site today and couldn't; he's been crying since 2pm this afternoon. Disappointing.


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

Alwyn joy[edit]

non-notable vanity page; no assertion of notability MishaMisha 13:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, A7, Geogre's law. Fan1967 14:23, 25 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, the deletion proposal was also withdrawn. Yanksox 14:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Reality in the schools[edit]

The article is blatant advertising - being filled only with information from the individual website and a link there. Seems to seems to fail notability test. Article fails to assert it's importance - is a straight lift from here - and when I attached the importance tag it was simply removed and more information copied from the website. Also see what Wikipedia is not as this is a blatant disregard of this and this again as it is a simple copy and paste job. Craig451 13:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responce from the article creator: When editing the article, I must have misunderstood when it said to expand it and after expanded delete the 'importance tag'. I'm guessing that was for an administrator to delete and not myself. My apologies. We wanted to create a resource that talked about what VR in the Schools is and how it is used (much like how wikipedia has pages on Universities). We didn't consider this advertising since all of our information is free and and VR in the Schools is non-commercial. I can understand however how advertising can be perceived. I do apologize for taking your time, we did not intend to break any rules. I understand the deletion of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.216.60.13 (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep This article seems to be well intentioned, a peer reviewed journal from a University. The article is in serious need of work by someone outside the project to conform to NPoV and WP:WWIN. Crazynas 16:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. I've rewritten intro from NPOV. Needs some work on the rest of the article. Tyrenius 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep' this please it is rewritten now but still needs work Yuckfoo 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep much improved - could do with some more work Dlyons493 Talk 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The apparent actual title of the journal is VR in the Schools; if so, the article should be moved there. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I may have been over-zealous in listing it for AfD yet once it is more than simply a copy of here and is no longer in infringement of this and this I will withdraw the request for deletion. Thanks. Craig451 09:14, 26 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 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Yankees Payroll[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unverifiable speculation and estimation, and seems to be original research as well. Canley 13:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and merge, if so desired, any verified info into New York Yankees. It might make an interesting section there. PJM 13:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are sites (USA Today, or ESPN, for example) which maintain this information for all teams and keep it updated when the roster changes, as well as providing historical numbers. That's a great function for a newspaper, which reacts well to changing information, but horrible for an encyclopedia. Fan1967 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per PJM. FWIW, this is not original research; this sort of thing can be verified. Sports generate massive statistics, most of which falls under trivia. The Yankees' payroll is one of the most salient facts about the team, though. Smerdis of Tlön 14:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. content has no place in a encyclopedia Caveat lector 18:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the content is noteworth then add it the Yankees main page. --Supercoop 20:46, 25 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. -Splashtalk 21:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNCUP[edit]

  • Delete non notable and the article doesn't really explain what PNCUP is just that it's perhaps a part of the Canadian University Press. Strothra 13:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is mentioned in Canadian University Press as one of five regions, but is the only one with its own article. The other regions aren't even red-linked. Tyrenius 18:26, 25 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 to Playstation 2. This said, that article doesn't really seem to have much of a space for this, so I'm just going to redirect and leave someone to merge for themselves; it's all in the history. -Splashtalk 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 9[edit]

Reference to an object that does not exist (and never will exist). It was only in a little commercial (as the article claims). This page should not exist. WIKIPEEDIO 14:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait...who said it won't ever exist?  :) All the same, delete it as commercial-cruft. -- Grev 14:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because obviously Playstation 3 will go the way of Apple 3, such is the curse of the 3 of a successful 2 =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary commercial-cruft, like was said! Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Devotchka 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect and Merge into Method Studios or Playstation Playstation 2. 18,500 Ghits (though many of these are erroneous), and it's a pretty widespread meme, if not at a "Where's the beef?" level. It's more than one commercial: it's a series of ads dating back to 2000. The article needs Clean up though. -- FRCP11 15:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's just one ad campaign, even if there was multiple ads. I only remember one of them. Merge with Playstation 2 if you like, since the ads were a part of the launch campaign for the PS2 in the US. hateless 17:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable ad campaign. BryanG(talk) 18:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, This is ad is quite famous, and is worth note. But, I think this would be appropriate to merge with the Playstaion 2. Smile Lee 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect probably to playstation is best Yuckfoo 19:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fictitious items are allowed here. Notable as well. --Zeno McDohl 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge dystopian marketing fantasy with main Playstation article. This does not deserve its own article. Bwithh 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Richardcavell 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to the future. Teke 23:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. --Dwiki 05:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above, failing that it probably doesn't hurt if it's Deleted. We don't cover the ads for other consoles either (even as a pry-from-my-cold-hands Nintendo geek, I have to say Xbox had the best TV/video ads =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. -- ReyBrujo 02:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to PlayStation 2. Notable commericals do have articles... 132.205.45.148 03:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single commercial for the Playstation 2? This doesn't even notable enough to be merged in. JoshuaZ 04:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Playstation 2. Also, notable commercials are suitable subjects of Wikipedia articles - see Cog (television commercial) for an example. - CNichols 20:01, 30 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. -Splashtalk 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Hits 02[edit]

Seems like a non-notable compilation album in New Zealand. Found a few used floating around for sale, but nothing outside of that. Metros232 14:37, 25 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 with KFNX. — TheKMantalk 07:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Waisman[edit]

PROD was removed, I did provide a reason (nn radio host) Computerjoe's talk 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with KFNX — Yes you gave a reason... in the history, not in the PROD template. ;-) — RJH (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, lol. I could swear prod didn't used to have that variable. Computerjoe's talk 15:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Tyrenius 18:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with KFNX. Then the article with for the radio station might have three sentences. B.Wind 23:30, 28 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. -Splashtalk 21:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BAK Ministries[edit]

  • Delete: Vanity article about non-notable web site (or person or something). Almost no representation on Google. Prod was removed without explanation. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agreed. When you say almost no representation on Google, you really mean it! Devotchka 15:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Almost? The website is the 4th hit on Google for the search term BAK Ministries. Also 1st on MSN, 2nd on AOL, 1st on AltaVista, and 1st on alltheweb --Cormallen7 16:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That only proves the web site exists. That is far from making it notable. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very nn. A total of five google hits, of which four are Wikipedia or mirrors, and the other is the website itself. In other words, if this article didn't exist, they would be totally unknown. Fan1967 16:43, 25 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 Computerjoe's talk 09:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lethbridge[edit]

Professor fails to qualify as notable. He's made it up the hierarchy, but no indication of coming up with any new ideas or saying anything special. Andjam 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because of the positions he holds/has held. Tyrenius 18:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I say keep him too. first of all he's a nice guy, and second, as a master of a cambridge college and the holder of such distinguished awards, he deserves a place on wikipedia... --131.111.226.61 19:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP address comes from Cambridge, has edited Cambridge-related articles. Andjam 03:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - While he does have many papers, I don't see what unique contributions he has that makes him particularly notable. Niceness does not make for notability.Wickethewok 19:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment altered by author after timestamp [14] Andjam 08:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC). Author tried to hide revision [15] Andjam 09:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he's master of a cambridge college Bwithh 05:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't notability be based on what they have done, rather than what titles they have obtained? Andjam 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Professor emeritus from the University of London, Master of a Cambridge college - the relevant parts of Academia seems to think he is notable, who am I to disagree? Judging from the Google Books search results, he is a leading Zola scholar. up+land 08:38, 26 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 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of religious authors[edit]

Indiscriminate list with no inclusion criteria (is it authors that are religious, or that write on religious topics?) and that would go into the tens of thousands if taken seriously. Also duplicates Category:Spiritual writers, Category: Christian writers et al. Sandstein 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed. If it's religious authors, the list will be endless. If it's authors writing about religious topics...well, that will be pretty endless too. Pointless. Devotchka 15:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories, folks. Categories. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 17:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Tyrenius 18:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. San Saba 17:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, endless Pavel Vozenilek 20:04, 26 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) 11:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apeironism[edit]

Apeironism is wholly an Original Research topic. The name is chosen or made up to describe an individual's personal philosophy or theory of the nature of "truth". No hits whatsoever on Google to date. Possible candidate for speedy delete, but is here for consensus review... Kenosis 15:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as nominator...Kenosis 15:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. One google hit, a website, apeironism.org, that's brand new, registered to the founder, Wim van der Loo, in February. Site has no content yet. Definitely not ready for prime time. Fan1967 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOR Tyrenius 18:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 22:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G7, creator blanked twice. Teke 23:07, 25 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 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TowersTimes[edit]

I really don't understand how this website is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. From what I can gather it's just a fan site with a small following and has no wide appeal to anyone not specifically interested in the subject. Also it meets none of Wikipedia's criteria for notable web content. The article itself is very POV and reads more like an advert, therefore I think it should be deleted. --Thegfd 15:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete covered already by a link from the alton towers article, doesn't seem to be notable enough to have a stand alone article. MartinRe 17:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "One of many fansites...", there's WP:WEB, and an Alexa ranking of 469,131 for a six year old site. Teke 23:13, 25 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. -Splashtalk 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiola Gatti[edit]

This was originally a speedy candidate, but the person in question may be notable. 500+ Google hits, and fronts for a band. No opinion on the merits, just bringing this to a wider audience. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I commented on the talk page about that. It's really a very tough call, but looking at the facts and when I can see from this article I belive it should be a keep, they seem to be a legitimate band. They have a decent list of songs, a strong following, I feel very mixed but it appears this should be a keep. Maybe it could be brought down or up later on, but I think this should stay up. Yanksox 16:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just about. Needs to be better referenced. Tyrenius 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is a legitimate band Yuckfoo 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but is she notable? We aren't discussing the band directly. Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • yes of course she is but this article does need references Yuckfoo 19:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No success has been achieved; try again if success is found by the guidelines. Teke 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TKEKE. Not notable artist. --Starionwolf 03:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May not be "notable" to you, but apparently has a genuine following. Is success being featured on the cover of Playboy Latino? http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2005/10/07/the-sexy-fabiola-campomanes-in-latino-playboy/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.143.225.138 (talk • contribs) -- Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC) (Interesting comment)[reply]
  • Coughs well, considering that's Fabiola Campomanes on the cover and not Fabiola Gatti, I'd say it doesn't matter. Teke 16:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not quite there in the notability department. Article needs sourcing and formatting, too. B.Wind 23:34, 28 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 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronkers[edit]

Not a dictionary, not notable. skorpion 16:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism (WP:NEO), with no verifiable evidence of usage shown.--blue520 16:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ronkers is bonkers. Even the link to Urban Dictionary goes to Yupster. Tyrenius 18:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the link to Urban Dictionary is to the main page of Urban Dictionary. Ronkers has (or had) no entry on Urban Dictionary [16].--blue520 07:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- while the article is completly non-sense the word "Ronkers" does appear in the music "Safe From Harm" from the band Massive Attack [17] and, at least from a non-english speaker as myself it looks that it means a midnight drunker.

  • Delete I can't find any sources. Cheers. --Starionwolf 04:34, 28 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 12:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An outfit[edit]

Article's creator keeps removing speedy tags, so I am bringing it here. First sentence gives very little clue as to what the article is about but I assume that {{nn-band}} applies. -- RHaworth 16:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A7 (n-n band) Metros232 16:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you weirdos leave this article alone. Surely you have better things to do with your lives that try and delete other people's contributions. Just because we don't know anything about 'underground rivers of london' doesn't mean that we have nothing to contribute. GET A LIFE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.195.121 (talk • contribs)
Please check out wiki guidelines for writing articles, for instance WP:Vanity Tyrenius 18:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, insult the board, that'll get your article kept. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7 (nn). Tyrenius 18:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the problem with all you people who spend your lives editing other people's contribution is that you seem to think that this is YOUR web site. that YOU can decide what is on it and what's not. Might you ever spend some time out of your speed deleting addiction to realise that people in the 'london indie scene' may find information about this little known band and its members more interesting than some obscure 17th century french explorer who appears in length on this site. I am simply asking you to be a little more open minded and to realise that just because your itchy little fingers cannot keep off your mouse button, the success of this web site depends on freedom of information for those who want it not on the ideals of 'wikipedians'.

And for your information, the author of this article is not in the band, doesn't not appear in any of the text and is not referred to in any way. Maybe you should review the definition of vanity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.240.11 (talk • contribs)

But this is our website and we do decide what goes on it. -- RHaworth 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(with apologies to the next author for interpolating) -- Ah, the famed Wiki-Cabal finally admits its existence. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! OUR website. it doesn't depend on you, or the two other people who appear on this page. there are millions of wikipedia users. how do you know that the majority of them don't want this site? When you are running out of server space and need the 500kb that this article uses up let me know and i will be more than willing to give it up for a better cause. Until then...mind your own business.

Would you like to hear a song as proof? You must consider yourself the source of all music knoweledge if you can justifiably decide that this band doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.240.11 (talk • contribs)

Whether or not the band exists is a nonissue. When judging music-related articles for inclusion in Wikipedia, notability is the currency of the realm ... and that's what we're failing to find. Proof of notability is the responsibility of the article's creator or editors. Perhaps instead of responding to every "delete" vote in this thread, you might take it upon yourself to furnish verifiable proof of the band's notability, and save the article from deletion. (Sadly, "would you like to hear a song" is not proof of notability -- see WP:NMG for examples of what -is-.) When creating other articles in the future, you might consider being proactive and including proof of notability as part of the article when you write it, thus avoiding this scenario altogether. Best, Docether 20:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Existence is not the same thing as notability. My left foot exists, but you won't find an article on it on Wikipedia because it just isn't important enough to warrant one. Same goes for this band. Reyk YO! 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your left foot may not have an article on Wikipedia, but mine does. Sorry, couldn't resist. ;) Docether 21:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is interesting. You seem to think that people want to know that you are 23, like beer, science and good books? Surely your foot would be more interesting? I think the discrepancy between my ideas and your is that you seem to think that somehow an article which may not interest everybody is not worth placing on wikipedia. Why does this matter? It makes no different to anyone's surfing pleasure, doesn't offend anyone, and can by its existence only be beneficial. There are one and a half million articles on wikipedia. What's one more or less? I think that maybe you should all worry a little more about contributing information yourselves onto this site rather than imposing your non existent authority on others who are just trying to get in the spirit of things. You don't own wikipedia, you don't control wikipedia and you have no right to presume that your vote counts for the whole world.
  • Speedy delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Also not verifiable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Reyk YO! 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete with prejudice. Reasons are clear enough. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7: Non notable band. I don't see any citations, references or external links. --Starionwolf 02:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Tychocat 08:12, 27 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 12:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebo The Friendly centurion[edit]

Only 3 ghits. This is fake. It has already been deleted at Memory Alpha: - [18] --Quentin Smith 16:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (This delete is from the nom, for the record)
  • Delete per nom. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense, not verifiable. --Starionwolf 04:43, 28 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 12:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás Morse[edit]

Google turns up nothing; seems to be non-notable or fake. Posted here because User:Adam7davies removed prod tag. Related to The Citizen X. TomTheHand 16:58, 25 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 12:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NMDE[edit]

I'm bringing this to AfD without a specific recommendation as I believe it needs wider community input. I have been unable to find anything about the NMDE through Google (and in edit summaries it was specified they do not have a website). This is basically the party's manifesto, so I believe it fails under original research. Perhaps the article could be edited down to remove the OR, but that wouldn't leave much and would need sources as its currently unverifiable. Note: though this organization's views are utterly abhorent please don't comment on the basis of the content Gwernol 16:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should only attempt to include articles that are properly sourced. Please add sources to your article. Thanks. PJM 17:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry wikipedians. This is my article and it really does fail under a lot of stuff i misunderstood. Feel free to delete it, i will take no offence. Will it be acceptable when they have a website up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle89 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 May 2006

  • speedy delete as per creators's request above, with no prejudice against creating a well sourced article with clear claims of notibility in the future. (if so, article title should be the expanded version, not the abbreviaton) MartinRe 17:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MartinRe Eagle89 17:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it changes my mind but i just found a post on the horst Wessel song under the name nmde on your site. Eagle89 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to sound personal, but it will never be notable unless someone writes about it. No offence intended. Eagle89 20:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very true, but wikipedia is not that someone. Wikipedia only writes up what is already notable, it does not write up things so they can get notable. Regards, MartinRe 21:08, 25 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 12:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Citizen X[edit]

Google turns up nothing; seems to be non-notable or fake. Posted here because User:Adam7davies removed prod tag. Related to Tomás Morse. TomTheHand 17:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless properly sourced. PJM 17:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – how about this webpage [19]? Crappy and useless, it may be, but it proves The Citizen X's existence. --Adam7davies 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We mean reliable sources. Thanks anyway. PJM 18:13, 25 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 to Maynard James Keenan. It already has a passing mention there, which is plenty I think. The article also smells a little of copyvio although I haven't checked that. -Splashtalk 21:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merkin Vineyards and Caduceus Cellars[edit]

Advert for non-notable wine producer. Even if Maynard James Keenan is notable, this does not automatically make a company that he owns notable. -- RHaworth 17:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd add the basic info to the Maynard James Keenan article and delete this article. BuckRose 17:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above (i.e. keep the article as a redirect, not deleted, so the history is retained. MartinRe 17:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's what everyone wants - go for it H. merkin 02:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is this considered for deletion? its all true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.188.73 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 May 2006

  • Keep Cleanly written, well researched article. I'm not certain that the subject fails notability requirements for wineries as many of these are inherently small business entities. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 21:21, 31 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. -Splashtalk 21:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prhizzm[edit]

  • Relisting debate per DRV; I have no opinon on this matter. Archive DRV. - Mailer Diablo 17:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable artist and per WP:MUSIC. --Strothra 18:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the additional information brought forward in the DRV is added to the article, I'll say keep. This would be a change to my original vote (a weak delete). Ac@osr 19:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disclosure: I am a main contributor to the article and in fact started it. Artist is notable, at least meets the WP:Music criteria in spirit, and probably meets them in fact. Prhizzm has two substantial releases on a notable electronic label, has been featured on the CBC and BBC, as well as in Eye Weekly, a popular entertainment weekly in Toronto. See the deletion review for my full argument for keeping the article and references to the claims.  OZLAWYER  talk  19:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:MUSIC and WP:VAIN. A few EP's doesn't make him notable. -- P199 23:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, WP:MUSIC is a guideline which sets out a series of arguments for notability that this band meets. How, exactly, does deleting "per WP:MUSIC" work with that in mind? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while i've heard of this artist (and seen him perform in TO) his insignificant number of releases on labels which themselves are insignificant does not help him pass the WP:MUSIC guidelines. The only label he has released on with any claim to notability is Benbecula (and even then they're barely notable outside the genre). Even more sad is the biography posted by his label is equally pathetic in content. Phrizzm doesnt come close to the popularity or notability of Venetian Snares (to compare to another Toronto music act). Sorry, just not worthy of a bio on WP yet per guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ 02:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my reasoning on the original debate as well as the AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC easily. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though the article is inadequate, the musician appears to meet the minimal qualifications for inclusion. The article, though, is in drastic need of improvement. Ande B 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I have the time I'll do a proper revamp of the article to satisfy the request of Ac@osr and the concerns of Ande B.  OZLAWYER  talk  01:24, 29 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 01:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoden.info[edit]

PROD removed by creator. Just seems to be promotional material for a magazine/website that doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. W.marsh 17:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No alexa data, and only two pages of google hits (either wikipedia or fourms), when searching for news about it. MartinRe 17:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 23:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Wikipedia articles are never written in the second person. B.Wind 23:44, 28 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 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metamorphasism[edit]

WP:V Unable to verify. No sources in article. This is either spelled wrong, non-notable, or a hoax. All "Metamorphasism" hits in Google concern sedimentary rock formation. No hits for supposed cult leader "Anthony De Iseo". John Nagle 17:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, this is an "emerging cult in Australia". Cant't find anything to confirm this. Tried "prod", which was deleted, so we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 17:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, unverifiable. A belief spreading "through the internet" that seems to generate no relevant google hits? Not likely. Fan1967 17:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Live in Perth Australia, im pretty sure that 'Metamorphasism' does exist. their pretty secluded and to themselves, not suprised theres no hits on google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.185.196 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I can't find any evidence on Google.com either. I thought this article had to do with rocks.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Perhaps try again when the event has become more established. Encyclopedias report, more than announce. -Splashtalk 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBBQ/OpenJam[edit]

Sounds like fun but its a local event held one Saturday afternoon in late spring. Maybe getting the Open Source community to eschew holy wars is notable in its way but not, I think, to the extent of having a Wiki article.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 17:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good old time, but delete per nom, I fear. PJM 17:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I'm sure that judgement comes from a lot of experience, it doesn't feel like there's much consideration involved. The notability of OpenBBQ/OpenJam isn't just the purpose stated, but that it's 1) the first event of this kind, and 2) that it is a charity benefit event for what is arguably a notable debate going on in the Raleigh, NC area. Wouldn't the philanthropic nature of this event make it notable? As for the localness and the fact that it's only one day, I would argue that the Austin City Limits Music Festival is also a local festival that started with only two days. Since there is no official notability policy, I guess I'd like to see a little more argument for why this wouldn't be considered notable. Where is that line? What makes one event important and one not? --Mattfrye 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Austin festival would not have met Wikipedia's standards when it was first launched, either. However, it later became notable. Fan1967 17:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Point well taken. --Mattfrye 17:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, almost advertising--Nick Y. 18:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So it looks like a lost cause. I'd rather have this article gone than to have it out there with a "this might be deleted sign on it." --Mattfrye 18:38, 25 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. Neither of the two retention options offered (k/m) received any particular support. -Splashtalk 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structures of the GLA[edit]

Was on DRV, relisting debate as there is no consensus. I have no opinon on this matter. Archive DRV - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. This page should be Kept who ever nominated this page for deletion is Racist against Middle Eastern individuals because the USA or China page was not nominated at all. Furthermore this page just explain the basic buildings in the game and their function. It does not include a stragetic usage or any glitches, prerequisites, or cheats like in game guides/ websites. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this is informational so just keep it. The page is long enough as it is so it is a bad idea to merge it because it will be too long. Someone worked hard on it and their work should be considered. This article is If you delete this page consider eliminating and/or merging pages with similar aspects such as:
  1. Infantry units of the USA
  2. Armoured units of the USA (game)
  3. Aerial units of the USA (game)
  4. Naval units of the USA (game)
  5. Infantry units of China (game)
  6. Armoured units of China (C&C: Generals)
  7. Aerial units of China (game)
  8. Infantry units of the GLA (game)
  9. Armoured units of the GLA (game)
  10. Structures of the USA
  11. Structures of the Chinese
  12. Infantry units of the Global Defense Initiative
  13. Armoured units of the Global Defense Initiative
  14. Aerial units of the Global Defense Initiative
  15. Infantry units of the Brotherhood of Nod
  16. Armoured units of the Brotherhood of Nod
  17. Aerial units of the Brotherhood of Nod
  18. Structures of the Global Defense Initiative
  19. Structures of the Brotherhood of Nod
  20. StarCraft units and structures
  21. Warcraft section #2
  22. all pages in Category:MK Main Characters
  23. all pages in List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number
  24. merge or delete List of Mario series characters
  25. Ace Combat Zero section #4 should just be a list
  26. Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball all links below
  27. Units in Advance Wars
  28. List of Advance Wars COs
  29. all Character links on page Tekken characters
  30. all character links on page King of fighters
  31. all pages linked to List of Soul Calibur characters
  32. Samurai Shodown series character section
  33. List of Street Fighter characters all links

Cs_california 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. That's beyond an encyclopedic description of the game, and into "gameplay guide" territory; just one of the things wikipedia is not. -- GWO
  • Strong Delete per GWO --Nick Y. 18:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. A game guide would explain how each structure is best used, while a game manual would contain a structures cost, tech level, and prerequisists, niether of which are present on this article. As an alternative to maintaining the whole the page we could also merge it to create one long list of strucutures, something I have been looking into offline. My view on the whole matter can be found here, and in either case I should still have about ten days of amnesty left. TomStar81 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete and Do Not Merge Its a good game, but Wikipedia is NOT A GAME GUIDE. Added Very Strong due to fact that the "as per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR" argument was used. Bwithh 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - WP is not a userguide or manual (WP:NOT 1.7.8). -- P199 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a user guide or manual -- and all the wikilawyering in the world won't change what this article is. --Calton | Talk 02:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Believe it or not, I do accept your arguement for what it is. At this point, I fully realise that no matter what I say or do nothing will save this page from its eventually deletion. Still, like Captain Smith of the Titanic, I feel the need to do what I can to save the page. TomStar81 04:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there no where this could be transwiki-ed to? - brenneman {L} 09:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am sure it could be transwikied somewhere, C&C is one of three RTS games that comprise the "holy trinity" of the genre, the other two are Warcraft and Starcraft. TomStar81 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GWO. --Metropolitan90 06:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, goes far beyond what is considered encyclopedic. Transwiki it to an appropriate C&C wiki if possible. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. WP is still not a game guide. --InShaneee 01:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete and Do Not Merge per Bwithh's idea. --Starionwolf 04:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with TomStar's idea. Almost the whole Generals section is like this, so it would make sense to merge the whole thing together. And if this gets deleted, does that mean the rest of the article is also up for deletion, too? --AK-17 20:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I am looking into retooling the presented information in order to conduct several mass merges for the info on the Generals Template. Currently I have three prototype structure layouts here, if anyone is interested in seeing them. TomStar81 20:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm actually planning to AfD the other Structure articles depending on how this discussion goes. --InShaneee 04:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In all fairness to that could I pester you to wait a little while? If the merging of the strucutures pages proves to be an acceptable compromise then there will not be any reason to delete the other pages. When I created the pages I designed them to ebe and flow to conform to wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, but for them to be reborn in a more acceptable form means coordinating a large amount of info, and that job only gets harder if there happens to be a time limit on the construction, as is the case here. TomStar81 06:41, 31 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. -Splashtalk 21:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John A. List[edit]

Based on the information given in the article, is this professor truly notable? It's close, but I say no. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I found this on his CV and added it to the article "From May 2002 to July 2003 he served as Senior Economist, President’s Council of Economic Advisers for Environmental and Resource Economics." HE has also contributed to several books and is on the editorial board of several major scholorly journals. He seems just on the keep side of notability as a notable economics professor.--Nick Y. 17:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Nick Y Dlyons493 Talk 20:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and keep per Nick Y. B.Wind 23:48, 28 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 01:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Tavsanoglu[edit]

Vanity, etc. See Google results.[20] (or rather, don't see, if you get the point)

  • Delete per nod Mad Jack O'Lantern 17:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability claims. If he was "eminent" in his field, Google would surely have more results. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "more results" than zero? :) Mad Jack O'Lantern 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these former financiers like to remain anonymous however, take Driss Ben-Brahim (former head of Goldman Sachs Exotic Trading Desk), for instance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.126.235 (talk • contribs)

Well, I'm glad to see his wishes are so important to you. Danny Lilithborne 22:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In other words, totally unverifiable. - Fan1967 17:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable because it's complete rubbish. IEEE knows nothing about a "A Tavsanoglu", (though it knows plenty about Vedat Tavsanoglu, who really was a prominent electronc engineer). The current VP of IEEE is Moshe Kam. Goldman Sachs has never heard of him either. Someone with an overdeveloped fantasy life. DJ Clayworth 18:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment written about IEEE was incorrect, however he is the son of Vedat Tavsanoglu. They have worked together on numerous publications. Goldman Sachs is not a person, it is regarded as being one of the leading investment banks in the world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavsanav (talk • contribs)

  • Question Can you verify any of this, from a reliable source. You would think someone with all those accomplishments, who had dated Jennifer Anniston and Denise Richards, would have appeared in print somewhere, if it were true. Fan1967 18:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Per Google scholar, Vedat Tavsanoglu has published about 15 papers since 2000. None show a co-author named Tavsanoglu. Fan1967 18:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When Ali Tavsanoglu was dating Jennifer Aniston and Denise Richards were minor celebrities at that time. So there is no possible way of verifying this. About the publications, Ali Tavsanoglu's initials are A V Tavsanoglu. So this is why it may get a bit confusing on the publications.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavsanav (talk • contribs)

  • Comment It's not confusing at all. The citations are perfectly clear: "V Tavsonoglu" with no "A" and no co-author who shares the same last name. Fan1967 19:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did Ali Tavsanoglu know Doris Day before she was a virgin, too? (I really hope people get this reference) Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oscar Levant. Fan1967 19:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What more evidence do you want? THEY WERE MINOR CELEBRITIES. If you really want to know ask Jennifer Aniston or Denise Richards. About the publications, my middle initial is always when publishing papers. This is a cultural thing. You won't understand unless you are turkish.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavsanav (talk • contribs)

  • Comment But you claim you coauthored them with your father. If that were so, there would be two Tavsanoglus listed. There aren't, just like IEEE never had a vice-president by that name. Fan1967 19:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus V. Tavsanoglu's name is given in full here, and it is not Ali. If you really are the son of Vedat Tavsanoglu I hope he's pleased that you are claiming to author his papers. DJ Clayworth 19:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, you don't know how publications are done. And of course he is proud of me.

User:Tavsanav has started inserting his own name into articles like Doris Day and The O.C. so I think we can forget about any idea that he is actually telling the truth. DJ Clayworth 19:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly, that ship has sailed. Probably a schoolkid with nothing better to do. Fan1967 19:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inserted into Doris Day! lol! Sorry I gave him the idea. I better not mention any more Wikipedia articles around this guy Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are sad for trying to prove this shit. You don't have a life and don't even get paid for this stuff. And if you do you can just buy a piece of bread with it. LOSERS.

We don't have a life? We're not the ones inventing fantasies about dating Jennifer Anniston, now, are we? Fan1967 19:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

suck a dick

Can somebody block this guy for personal attacks already? I'm getting kinda bored Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, can someone e-mail the exchange to Dad? Looks like his university e-mail is available on the web. Fan1967 19:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sooner you accept the truth the better - if I provided pictures would that suit you?

  • Delete Ali Tavsanoglu was dating Jennifer Aniston notability is not contagious. so delete Jennifer Aniston. Sorry I'm getting confused here. Delete per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't delete Jennifer Aniston, she's already had a rough year. :):):) Mad Jack 20:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing more than a generic name dropper. Danny Lilithborne 22:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as sad student fantasy Bwithh 23:49, 25 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. -Splashtalk 21:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Gage[edit]

Delete minor politician with no assrtion of anything else. Former mayor of a town of 41K and a county-level official. Local politicians w/o statewide office or major mayoralty are always NN unless they have something else under their belt, like a juicy scandal or something. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Keep" County Supervisors in California represent a large number of people and have a lot of responsibility. It is frequently used as a stepping stone to higher office as well. Mayor, Supervisor, Assembly, Senate. Definately notable, keep. Dapoloplayer 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it's a stepping stone it's a non-notable office. And there's no evidence that he has stepped anyway. Dlyons493 Talk 20:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have article for another half-dozen people who were in his position, all of them have stepped, and none of them are up for deletion. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Gets some ghits other than WP mirrors. Currently has position as a polititian and has an official website. I know it's not much, but he's not absolutely nn, and as WP is not paper, why not give him a couple of kbytes? --Zoz (t) 22:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if his claim to fame is only being a county commissioner and the mayor of a small town/city, he is nn. B.Wind 23:52, 28 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 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blemba[edit]

Classical example of "things you made up one day in school" or, for that matter, while drinking. Delete as not-notable and unverifiable. Renata 17:51, 25 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 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deidre powell[edit]

Seems to be just another lawyer, although 'founder of Jamaica's first legal research website' might count as notable if verified. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just another lawyer. The website was probably founded by her as far as I can tell but it does not seem to be a notable website either.--Nick Y. 18:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 23:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait 5 days for clean up and sourcing; otherwise delete. If verified, Ms. Powell is notable enough... but the article needs sourcing and formatting. B.Wind 23:57, 28 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:

List of football (soccer) players[edit]

There are too many footballers in the world to make this list maintainable. A category would surely serve the purpose better. And it is difficult to determine an objective, workable criteria of inclusion on the list if it does not aim to be an exhaustive list -- down that road lies only madness, and POV.

See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#List of all footballers, renowned footballers, and footballers by position.

Also nominated in this AfD is List of renowned football players for the same reason. --Pkchan 17:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Pkchan 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and categorize. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize. BryanG(talk) 18:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and categorize A list would be endless; this kind of thing is the reason categories exist. -- Kicking222 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Empty list ("delete"), categorize and keep List of football (soccer) players as a list of lists, linking to maintainable lists like FIFA Player of the Year or List of England international footballers. – Elisson • Talk 19:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johan Elisson has made a very sensible recommendation which I suppor t. Keeping this as a list of lists is sensible. Useful lists and categories can and should work together. Keep as modified by Johan Elisson. Capitalistroadster 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and categorise the former, just delete the latter One is unmanageable, the other has a title that is inherently POV. I would support a list containing an externally verified subset of 'renowned' footballers, e.g. Pele's recent choice of the 100 greatest (although sadly, the great man played the game better than he talks it). Badgerpatrol 01:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what Elisson suggests above. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case the name should be Lists of football (soccer) players and not the current name. Punkmorten 21:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to list of lists as per Elisson. Qwghlm 09:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and categorise the former. -- Alias Flood 00:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was This seems to have overran, though I am seeing a clear consensus to Keep Computerjoe's talk 09:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete i think some of the information may be relevant in other pages, but as much as I love Pink Floyd, I don't see the need for a free-standing article. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information in the article is both important and interesting. It is possible that this is not the best use of the word "trivia" and the article should be renamed or reorganized, but that doesn't mean the article gets deleted. Additionally, it doesn't appear that the nominator made an attempt to seriously evaluate the article before nominating it. I don't agree with nominating an article based on a word in its title. Aguerriero (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nomination pretty much says everything. This page is certainly an indiscriminate list of information, and importance is definitely an issue. I think we can put this article in the "fancruft" category. -- Kicking222 19:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't really need its own separate "trivia" article. Wickethewok 19:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - split from already large Pink Floyd, seems no reason to delete material on the basis of the article title containing the word trivia, but propose rename to Cultural references to Pink Floyd in order not to offend the sensibilities of the nominator. I agree with the sentiments, but it will all end in tears. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per angus in order to clarify the worth of this article. Many of the things in this article are not trivial, especially the items in the miscellaneous section, and the info about cycles and synchronicities. I understand wanting to divide it up among the respective albums, but it is nice to have everything here in one place. However, some of the more speculative pieces, such as Bill Clinton's dog's name being a reference to the song of the same name, should be removed or cited. --Joelmills 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, reorganize, maybe trim a bit, but deletion seems overly drastic. Certainly there is a great deal of potential interest here, though I would be the first to admit it's poorly organized and some of it could go. PurplePlatypus 02:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is too drastic, the article is a great start and quite informative.Siraf 04:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Objection to this article on the ground that "trivia" breaches Wiki's NPOV and "importance" values is specious. I agree that some of the material is too trivial to include, but certainly the cycles and synchs deserve to be kept.Grimhim 10:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Speculative items need citations. Alot of the content is valid and should be merged with Pink Floyd.
  • Strong Keep (but rename it if it's such a big deal) - much of this information is precisely the kind of thing which people look to the Wikipedia for, but which most users consider too trivial to include in the main article, which is already bursting at the seams. That doesn't necessarily mean that the information is in any way trivial to someone looking for information about the band, such as synchronicities and the band's cultural influences, nor does it imply things too trivial to include in the Wikipedia. Much information which is "uncited" are direct observations - what citation is needed for mentioning a Dark Side of the Moon poster in a television series, clearly observable to anyone watching the episode? - dharmabum 10:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has a purpose and an interest. I see no reason for it to be deleted. Merging would only serve to lengthen the already long original article.

  • Keep -- I'm certain this article was split to avoid an overly long article at Pink Floyd. Perhaps a rename to Pink Floyd facts or a more suitable less-trivial name is in order. - Longhair 02:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this should be seen as associated to the main Pink Floyd and linked from there. -- Beardo 03:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is; like all the rest of the Pink Floyd sub-articles (Publius Enigma, etc.) it's linked in the large template box. - dharmabum 04:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Merging it with the main article would make it too large. Better to keep and trim.

Sfacets 05:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 12:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete per nom. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per nom. Caveat lector 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this was broken off from the main article because of the size of the main article. There is plenty of precedent for trivia for the subject of a major article - almost anyone who is interested in the subject will be interested in the trivia. Aguerriero (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Aguerriero (but perhaps rename to Cultural references to Madonna). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per aguerriero, rename per angus. --Joelmills 01:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rework. Most information is interesting but doesn't fit into the main article because of it's size. The trivia list should be expanded with valuable information and sectioned to enhance the main article Madonna (entertainer). There has been a section about "influences" and so on suggested on the talk page of the main article. Instead a section in the main article it should become a seperate article (because of size). So the trivia list could become "Cultural references to Madonna" (like suggested by Angus McLellan above) but also the other way around "Cultural influences on Madonnas work". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bisco (talk • contribs) .
  • Merge and delete per nom. We shouldn't have pages with random trivia. --Maitch 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nothing to do here. The nomination isn't convincing on its merits, and there's no consensus to delete the material. Merge and delete is impossible because it breaks the GFDL by eliminating evidence of authorship. If you want to merge then you don't need approval here to do it. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rush trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. . Articles title is assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. . If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. . Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:49, 25 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. Mackensen (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete per nom. Caveat lector 18:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Yanksox 19:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --Dangerous-Boy 07:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a tough job, though! In any case, can be deleted. I have kept a copy here with plans to incorporate facts later in other articles. Keep Changed vote after the comments by Hornplease. If there are other trivia pages which are not tagged for deletion, this page should not be an exception. However, the case presented is good. And if the article is deleted, so should be other Trivia articles, all of which come under the perview of the rationale presented by The_stuart. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Please scroll down. There is no established policy about this. Several trivia articles have been created if the main article will get too big or too cluttered with the inclusion of the facts. The Calcutta article is difficult to edit, but is expanding at an extraordinary rate. I strongly recommend that we leave this as is, in order to avoid cluttering up the main article. I would be infuriated if the Great Race trivia page was left as is but this was merged back into Calcutta. Hornplease 08:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps another page is needed, however "trivia" has no place within an encyclopedia.--The_stuart 01:48, 30 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. Yanksox 17:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That '70s Show (Trivia)[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think that it's fun, and certainly notable enough for most wikipedians who search for it. - Richardcavell 23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my cruft example. Teke 00:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Way too long to merge with main article. I have to take issue with two of the nom's main points. The word trivia is well established in describing relatively unimportant aspects of pop culture, so I do not think it is POV. Trivia is not listed under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information because it is not a list of loosely associated information - it is very much associated with the main topic. As to importance, well, the nom makes a valid point, but for a popular show like this, it is acceptable to have relativly unimportant facts in their own article (again, one that is as long as this). --Joelmills 01:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trivia can be notable. --MarsRover 04:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it doesn't seem possible to merge with main article due to size constraints, keep per User:Joelmills. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's rediculous if you think this information doen't belong in wikipedia because of some technicality that doesn't even apply to this article. It might be a good idea to merge the page if there were only a handfull of trivia items, but this is a huge amount of information and could not possibly be merged with the article. --Glaze 17:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's my belief that Wikipedia's rules are a guide, not hard-and-fast rules for which she would get lost in their minutiae. The trivia page is too big to be incorporated into the main article but it is the kind of interesting sub-article that people looking for information on That '70s Show might like to read. This isn't a print encyclopedia where we're worried about space, so an article like this that offers an interested reader more in-depth information that they might not find elsewhere is something that should stay. DetectiveFork 19:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Delete this and you'll have to get rid of the vast amounts of useless Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, (etc, etc) information which so many people have wasted so much of their time on. It might as well stay (besides, I want to read it). - Rik
  • Keep - The article is far too long to incorporate into the main article, and editing it to fit would not do the main article justice. It isn't causing any harm by being separate, and is very informative besides. --Mike 07:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- We shouldn't delete something like this because of a few technicalities. This article is damn well informative and should be kept for people to peruse. Besides, it's too long to merge with the main article. Candidates for deletion should be articles on esoteric topics, and "That '70s Show" is definitely not little-known. If everyone in here is too concerned about such trivial (pun unintended) details, then the simplest way to fix the problem is to change the title of the article. --User:Inviktos
  • Keep! Please! - This is way too long to merge back into the main article. The main article was a mess when most of this stuff was part of the article. Separating this material into a separate trivia page helped clean up the article for That 70s Show. If you read the Wikipedia:Trivia article, you'll see that while Wikipedia policy is not to promote trivia, it does not ban it. Obviously plenty of people feel that the That 70s Show trivia meets the qualification for being interesting enough to keep. Wryspy 08:35, 29 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. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of John Lennon Trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Prehaps a major cleanup and merge could be in order. Yanksox 17:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and Merge back to John Lennon Not everything in this article is trivial. Some of it is and needs to go. Some of it is conspiracy theory but worthy of inclusion as such.--Nick Y. 18:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per nom. Caveat lector 18:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep would be too big if merged. --MarsRover 04:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:MarsRover; cleanup and merge per User:Nick Y. doesn't seem possible due to size constraints otherwise I would agree with his proposal. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:31, 26 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. Yanksox 14:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete per nom. Caveat lector 18:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Trivia" is a commonly used term on Wikipedia, I don't think that's a valid reason for deletion. In addition, the trivia section was in the main Charmed article, and it was placed in its own article because of its size. —MiraLuka 23:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikify and keep. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trivia has been split off because it was too long. I have already proposed deletion of irrelevant trivia items but even basic trivia is too long for the main article. AdamDobay 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Addition: The article contains relevant information that does not fit in the main article but is important nevertheless, such as references in popular culture. I suggest pruning the trivia down to the information relevant to the show, adding why it is relevant (such as the end-of-season door closing that has become a trademark of the show). AdamDobay 10:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Addition #2: Restructuring the article perhaps shows better that it contains notable information that is not insignificant.[reply]
    • If the information within this article is important, sifnificant, relevent, or notable then the article is incorrectly titled if you note the definition of "trivia". Although not an easy task, wouldn't it make more sense to put of these things into various places within the main article? --The_stuart 01:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AdamDobay 11:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per Adam Dobay & MiraLuka --Maelwys 00:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep actually having a trivia article for a main article seems like a good idea. Some people what the facts and other hard-core fans want the trivia. --MarsRover 04:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some of the information into various sections on Charmed-related articles, but delete this article and do not just make a trivia section in the main Charmed article. (Sorry if that sounded a bit to forceful) —Mets501talk 02:23, 27 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. Yanksox 17:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I created this page to solve a problem - namely, that the headline London Underground article was way, way too big and unstructured. It's a subject about which there are a lot of factoids and bits of information which are interesting but not interesting enough for the already-bloated main page. This page provides somewhere for them to go - otherwise they would just start appearing back on the headline article again, leading to more reversions, more editor effort, and more edit wars as people battle over what's important enough to be on the headline article and what's not. In short, this page is there for a reason! --Mike 18:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Mike. The information on this page is useful to hundreds of people looking for information such as this. Most articles would have it on the main article, but the London Underground article is far too bloated already. DJR (Talk) 18:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per nom. no place in an encyclopedia Caveat lector 19:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's quite different to something like "Tom Cruise trivia" - discussing LU trivia is a common pasttime for Londoners. None of the facts are original research, they are things that people discuss and pass around. It really is in a different category to the other trivia pages marked for deletion. Trious 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Mpk et al. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess someone out there really hates trivia. Half wikipedia is trivia so need more of a reason than "it's trivia". --MarsRover 04:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the article, IMHO the content is wiorthy of inclusion. The issue is whether it is collected here, where people can find it, or divided among multiple articles according to subject-matter, which will make it difficult to co-ordinate the suble connectivities involved -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per mike. Many articles have trivia and some articles have big sections which deserve seperate articles Simply south 11:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it might be titled 'trivia' but it's far less trivial than dozens of articles about episodes of Star Trek or obscure American public servants. Bretonbanquet 23:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Most articles have a trivia section. Just because this one's is long enough to be moved to a separate page doesn't change that. --Dtcdthingy 04:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have contributed to this article and consider it worthwhile to retain it as a stand-alone page. As has been pointed out, this page does not represent original research but instead acts as a catalogue of facts about London's underground system which are circulated amongst Londoners much as one might circulate jokes or indeed any meme of information. I'd say this page is already the best record on the Internet of such facts and should hence be retained. 'Trivia' in the title of the page is being used in a far less pejorative sense than "things which are trifling or unimportant", and is instead being used more in the sense of "bite-sized facts". I think trivia is the best title for the page but perhaps we could work on an alternative title referring to 'facts'.


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 12:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete per nom. no place in an encyclopedia Caveat lector 19:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Survivor pages. All facts about a specific Survivor should go on that seasons page. All general facts should go on the main Survivor page. In addition, facts about people should also go on their person pages if they have one. Keep after being moved to name proposed by JKPrivett and being cleaned up.TeckWiz 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopedic. Bwithh 23:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being this is a pop culture topic you will never get rid of trivia. You are better off seperating it out than cramming it back in the main article. --MarsRover 04:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was reading the page, and actually considering nominating it when I noticed it already had been. Wikipedia is not the place for this ridiculous collection of non-notable facts. RyanGerbil10 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Modify A few of the items are trivial. Many others are statistical and notable events in a competition viewed by one of the largest audiences on US television. Compare to WNBA Finals, Slam Dunk Contest or MLB hitters with four home runs in one game. The revised version would be Survivor (TV) Records and Notable Events --JKPrivett 09:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC) I have begun a test on my user page. I see a few pages coming out of it: Winners, Records, Notable Eliminations, Challenges. 216.80.97.115 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

didn't realize I had been logged out...JKPrivett 05:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your page is great. I think we should use it. Anyone else second that?TeckWiz 12:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second JKPrivett's Keep and Modify solution. Very well done. BullWikiWinkle 21:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It mentions several notable events as well as records. If it were merged with a different page then that page would be very cluttered. ~Scorpion0422
  • Keep Quiddity99
  • Keep This was originally all on the main page for the Survivor series, and the page had become huge. That's why I moved the information to another page. I don't think I was the one who labeled the page "trivia". I just moved what was originally at the main page because I thought Wikipedia had a size limit. JKPrivett's idea sounds like a good one. --JamesB3 10:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mackensen (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Wing trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete per nom. no place in an encyclopedia Caveat lector 19:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that some of the material could be instead be included in the main article in other sections. There could be a, "Making off," section. Other articles have a, "Cultural Reference," section (For example, see The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references). ISD 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or merge with the main article. Tim! 10:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed the page so it only contains cultural references. ISD 10:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was thrown out. You cannot merge and delete. These options are not compatible. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Law & Order trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete per nom. no place in an encyclopedia Caveat lector 19:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article Law & Order as a trivia/interesting facts section. Dcflyer 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Article is mistitled as 'trivia,' could be titled List of Law & Order facts Dcflyer 12:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia. Pavel Vozenilek 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete Merge any interesting info into the main article. If there's too much info for main article, yet it is important and it needs a place, I'd appreciate the article's creator adding his views. Are we developing any policy on trivia additions to articles? It seems to be becoming a problem, taking over some articles. --DanielCD 20:09, 27 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. Mailer Diablo 12:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge (with discussion) back to the season articles and/or The Amazing Race main article. Some of it is interesting and can be integrated into the season trivia sections or leg descriptions; others, like the relationship lists and parts of the "disaster curse" section, are stretching it a bit and probably can be dumped. BryanG(talk) 18:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per nom. Caveat lector 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Keep, if Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, what, then, is the point of having Trivia on any Wikipedia page? This page was made so that such trivia wouldn't clutter up season articles or the main article, and at the very least the page is organized, and not merely an assorment of random facts. --HansTAR 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused, what do you mean by "oppose"? First it sounds like you want it deleted because of WP:NOT, and then it sounds like you want it kept as it is currently is. Which is it? BryanG(talk) 21:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think HansTAR was trying to say that the trivia shouldn't go on the Amazing Race pages because there is too much and it would create clutter. I believe he is saying the trivia page is where all this trivia belongs to keep the season pages and the main page clean and not having to require a clean-up flag. Is this what you meant HansTAR?TeckWiz 21:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, that's what I was trying to say. I've made myself a little clearer in my vote (I had meant to say that I opposed the deletion of the article).--HansTAR 04:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just wanted to make sure that's what you meant. BryanG(talk) 19:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As HansTAR said, this page reduces clutter on the other race pages. The other pages have enough info. Merging it would make the articles longer than prefered. A lot of the trivia is good and most of it is true and should stay. Like I said, most, so it does need a little clean-up. Also, the reason this page was AFD'd was because it is "The Amazing Race Trivia. So, we could also move this page to a name like "The Amazing Race Facts" or another title suggested by someone else. TeckWiz 20:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as scarily demented content and also non-notable list. Bwithh 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. "Scarily demented"?--HansTAR 04:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the most valuable information (not the whole thing) into The Amazing Race and redirect there. Note that information such as the list of alliterative teams should not be counted as the most valuable information. --Metropolitan90 06:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all trivia. Pavel Vozenilek 20:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Delete for reasons already given. DVD+ R/W 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information presented in the article was seperated from the Amazing Race main article to reduce its article size. Merging the information back would not be logical mouselmm 23:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I think that some of the more NN details here can be eliminated or trimmed down. --Madchester 01:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I'm changing my vote from Delete and Merge to just Delete. Mouselmm is right is would be illogical to merge the article back. If anyone wants to create a fan site go ahead! Just don't clog up an encyclopedia with trivia. Caveat lector 02:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may say this: what may be non-notable and unimportant to some might be perfectly well-fitted in an encyclopedia for others. I, for example, could care less about a list of songs performed on American Idol (which, to me, seems just as "fan-ny" as this article). However, if ever I need to do research for American Idol, I know that good ol' Wikipedia contains just the list I need. Same with Amazing Race trivia. I'm all for changing the title and trimming any completely unnecessary details, but, again, I cite that this is not merely a random assortment of facts, but an organized list in the same manner as that American Idol list. --HansTAR 05:08, 28 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 keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 21:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zealot Trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this one: it isn't trivia about Zealot or Zealots, it's about a former AOL game called "Zealot Trivia." Smerdis of Tlön 18:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per Smerdis. The nominator obviously didn't even look at the article before nominating it, doing so only based on the name, and so the reasons for deletion don't apply in the slightest. Please try to READ an article before you nominate it for deletion. --Maelwys 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retract nomination Sorry guys, got in a rush. --The_stuart 19:09, 25 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 and delete. --Ezeu 22:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Trivia about Hungarian producer Gabriel Pascal[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page in question, and would suggest deleting rather than merging. These points are interesting and fun to know, but are not really appropriate for a proper encyclopedic article. They do not add any important information to Pascal's life. They are just odd "fun facts" left over from spending a long time researching him for the main article. I wouldn't suggest merging them with the main article because it will degrade the quality and sobriety of that article. So my vote is for deletion if it is not appropriate for List of trivia lists under Wikipedia rules. Chris 21:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - what's with all this hatred for trivia? Like the author says we shouldn't be merging tons of trivia back in main articles. --MarsRover 04:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is the best option as most of this information should be in the article. It provides valuable insights into Pascal's life, career and character. It lends more colour. That is not a bad thing. Also the article is curiously deficient in parts. We have the information about the will and the court battle, but the outcome is separated out into the "trivia" article. That doesn't make sense. I don't regard most of this information as trivial. To leave them out is virtually censoring the main article and not providing a full rounded picture. Tyrenius 23:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the main article links to the trivia list under "See also," so nothing is lost by keeping it separate. While some might merge nicely (like his missing son and his earlier film career), some of the odder things in the trivia list just don't seem to warrant Encycopedic mention, such as his peculiar nicknames by his guru or that he was naked when he got into movies and when he met Shaw. Just a thought to consider. Maybe this could be solved by merging some and deleting the rest. People can always read the biographies for the other material. Chris 01:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree! Peculiar nicknames by guru give an insight into what was going on behind the public image, and the naked bit too, especially with Shaw. It fleshes out (excuse pun - not intended, honest) the facts. Tyrenius 01:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to try to merge some of the material into the main article. I hope it doesn't make the article too informal. Chris 14:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Almost all the material has now been merged into the main article, and the part about David Lean co-directing "Major Barbara" has been moved to Wiki's David Lean article. I still haven't figured out how to explain how Margaret Scott paid his debts to his mistress, his last option payment on "My Fair Lady," and his hospital bill on his death-bed -- later to be repaid from the estate (actually her daughter was repaid from the estate as Margaret either jumped or fell out of a window to her death in NY before the settlement came through), and various other tid-bits such as that he didn't drink, but smoked cigars profusely to the point where Shaw became alarmed. Perhaps these are truly trivial in the sense that they are unimportant. I may still see if they can also be included in a coherent way. I will wait till the end of the 5 day arbitration in case there are more votes to keep the Trivia page. I don't know how to delete it, so I will leave that to an administrator. Chris 16:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved everything over to the main article. If anyone wants to remove this trivia entry, be my guest. I don't know how to do it. I think the inclusions actually improved the article and I am greatful for all the input and support. I also want to add that I am very proud of the Gabriel Pascal Wikipedia article now as it is the only article about Pascal over one paragraph long on the entire World Wide Web and all facts are from quality published sources. Chris 21:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris I'd like to congratulate you on the article, which I think is a credit to Wikipedia, and thanks for taking up the suggestion to incorporate what was on the "trivia" page into the main page to provide a "one stop" on him. Tyrenius 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changed from merge, above) now that the article editor Chris has moved the info into the main article. I have blanked the page, now the information is a duplicate.Tyrenius 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tyrenius, I think this all worked out for the best. I also deleted the link from List of Trivia Lists on Wikipedia. Chris 00:58, 28 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, with rename. -Splashtalk 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sengoku Period Trivia[edit]

I have nominated this article because of the use of the word "trivia", which is defined by wiktionary as insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information. This puts the article in direct conflict with my understanding of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

  1. Articles title assumes that the information therin is trivial, violating NPOV
  2. If we are to assume that the articles information is indeed trivial then it is violating Imporance.
  3. Finally being that a trivia list is inherintly a list of random facts, this article is in violation of What Wikipedia is not.

Some or all of the information in this artile may be good however, it should be integrated into proper places within established articles. For advice on how this may be accomplished you might want to look at: Wikipedia:Trivia and User:GK/On adding trivia to the main body of an article. The_stuart 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Cultural references to the SengokuPeriod, but by all means, please do not delete. I created this article in order to purge the Sengoku Period article of this junk. Frankly, I think that trivia should be banned from certain articles, but since it is allowed, it would be nice to handle intelligently, putting it where people who want it can find it without letting it ruin an otherwise serious article.Spventi 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per User:Spventi and User:BryanG. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We should keep all these trivia articles. Its human nature that people are interested in this stuff and you better off with it seperated out than in the main article. --MarsRover 05:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do not merge into Sengoku period. The originator did that article a service by moving distracting information out of it, but selected an unfortunate name. Fg2 05:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above suggestions. --Kunzite 23:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above suggestions. --Luvlymish 13:30, 27 May 2006 (GMT+9)
  • Rename per above suggestions. --Choboeious 17:43, 30 May 2006 (GMT-5)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AppleClips Daily[edit]

Non-notable podcast that just started this month. Is hosted at Podomatic as it can't even afford its own website. --Hetar 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Correction Hetar, podomatic is a pay service, and this podcast recieves over 900 hits a day (feed views). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.197.140 (talk • contribs)

Delete - 85 Ghits, without inverted commas. --Nydas 18:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Caveat lector 19:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 19:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral- Notability is not policy. Just beacuse the podcaster can't pay for a website doesn't make it worthy for deletion. The only reason im neutral is due to the cast possibly being vanity, which is policy. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 19:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If there's no other assertion of notability, I don't care whether the podcast has its own site or not. It gets a very low number of Google hits, there are no external references, and the podcast itself was started three weeks ago. If they did have their own site, but all other criteria was the same, I don't think anybody (including myself) would be changing their vote from delete to keep. -- Kicking222 21:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Few google hits, no sources claiming notability. Wickethewok 19:34, 25 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. Among those more established and in less of a hurry, there is a clear enough position to delete. The fact that this came and went well inside the timescale of this AfD is compelling by itself. Wikipedia is not a collection of transient ephemera that cause a ripple for a few hours. That is why the rest of the internet sucks, and Wikipedia doesn't, to bend a phrase. -Splashtalk 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery song[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

This must be one of the strangest incomplete AfD nominations I've ever seen before... the article had a note saying "This article is currently being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion process", but no link to a discussion, and the notice read nothing else -- anyways, here it is now, and I don't think anything that was created yesterday should have its own article on Wikipedia, unless it's notable enough to make the main page's "In the News" section, in which case there wouldn't be any argument anyways. TheProject 18:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least until we know what song it is and where it came from. Kevomatic 14:05, 25 May 2006

Keep or merge I'd say keep it and expand upon it, or merge it with the YTMND main article. It's a surprisingly fast spreading fad, I think it may be worthy of expansion. R.E. Freak 19:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into YTMND. The subject is absolutely not notable enough to have its own article, but I can see it being part of the main YTMND page. -- Kicking222 19:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not particularly notable YTMND thing. WP is not a directory for YTMND. Wickethewok 19:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. People need to know that Wikipedia doesn't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.191.3 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Wickethewok. Angr (t • c) 20:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also - I think your mystery song was solved anyway.... Wickethewok 22:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 22:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Until the song is found, then merge to the YTMND article. Just since you may not care doesn't mean an ENTIRE community would like to figure it out. DarkZealot89 19:50, 25 May 2006
    • Comment - It was found already, and thats a bad reason to keep an article... Wickethewok 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now Merge Ok Found, so now merge it as a fad into the ytmnd page.
  • Delete per nom. There's no page for That's the beauty of it. It doesn't do anything. after all. Шизомби 00:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.75.203 (talk • contribs)
  • SAVE WIKIPEDIA IS THE FREE ENCYLOPEIDA. NOT THE FREE NOT ENCYCLOPEDIA!
  • Keep because it's a part of internet culture 12.219.74.52 02:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge merge it into other YTMND article
  • Keep or merge into the List of YTMND fads, 'cause it would make a lot more sense, while keeping it online. -Dancing-is-Forbidden DiF39 02:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article's an absolute hash of silly vandalism right now. If it's kept, I'd suggest someone revert it to something that's actually coherent. (I can't find a version that fits that criteria, but someone might.) Tony Fox 02:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - Delete for the same reason as Wicketthewok mentionned, or Merge into the YTMND article...--mimithebrain 03:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Not notable really, at best merge with YTMND as its a fad for YTMND fans. Kevin Breitenstein 03:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's another YTMND fad, which has no signifigence or meaning outside of YTMND. If it becomes a hall of fame YTMND, then maybe we can give it a sentence at the YTMND article. Otherwise, this belongs at www.ytmnd.com/wiki/ YTMND wiki. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 05:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without Merge nn Bwithh 05:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LBMixPro. --Metropolitan90 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, in case this winds up as a merge, it might be nice to say what the song turned out to be, since the article claims that the song has been identified but still doesn't provide the identification. --Metropolitan90 02:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, after the AfD closed, it was revealed that the song was "Answers" by Vigilante. --Metropolitan90 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LBMixPro. Reyk YO! 02:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete omg what a crap!  Grue  17:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with YTMND article as a fad. Edit the article, before merging, to say the song was identified. --Farae 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge, as the List of YTMND fads article is nonexistant, and specific fads are not mentioned under YTMND#Fads and memes. That is what ytmnd.com/wiki/index.php/Fads this is for. -Whomp 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle or put some where on internet phenomenon--The_stuart 01:57, 30 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. -Splashtalk 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Verhelst[edit]

Reason : Notability

Reason : The page was created by user 1652186 to make a point. See User_talk:LucVerhelst#Your_very_own_article

LucVerhelst 18:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stong keep. I deny in the strongest possible way that I created this article under WP:POINT. The reason is indeed the keeping of another article, but I was told that articles on all MPs are acceptable. I therefore also see articles about political party fraction leaders as justified. I think that the data in the article show that Mr. Verhelst is notable. The reason that he wants this article deleted is so that his discussion partners would be unable to find out that he is politically bound and therefore biased in political discussions about his oppontens. 1652186 18:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm happy to announce that Mr. Verhelst has chosen to share his political background on his user page. I therefore retract my comment of him wanting to keep it undisclosed, with my apologies to him. 1652186 18:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I kind of like an article on myself... --LucVerhelst 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dunno what those two are on about, but subject does not seem to be particularly notable. Not everyone involved with politics is necessarily notable. Wickethewok 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor politicians are NN. Unless M. Verhelst is actually elected to the legislature, user space shall be the abode of this info. Cheers! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regretfully. Politics needs more 'fraction leaders' and fewer faction leaders. Dlyons493 Talk 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: MPs are kept under the part of WP:BIO saying "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature"; so is the district council for a district of the entire country (which would make it a state or province) or a district of the city of Antwerp? AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer : it's a district of the city of Antwerp, two levels below the provincial level, 4 levels below the federal/national level. You can fairly say that the notability on that level is rather low... --LucVerhelst 21:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per that. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to me that Luc Verhelst appears to be a councillor and as such our guidelines for councillors apply. The critical issue here is how much verifiable material from reliable sources is available about him as well as the size of the population of the city. Capitalistroadster 21:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The city of Antwerp has 460.000 inhabitants, the district in question has some 40.000 inhabitants. --LucVerhelst 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even the most notable (googlewise) Belgian named Luc Verhelst (unless subject is also CIO of Fortis). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: To my feelings, an article on a living person (or of whom the descendents are likely to feel envolved) should not become created unless:
  • the person belongs to a category of which all members get a page; or
  • after the person's (or descendents') explicit consent,
AND the person (or a representative descendent) is timely notified when the article will be submitted; or
  • the reasonably assumed interest by readers of the article, outweighs the interest of its submitter,
AND the article is well-balanced, well-referenced, and sufficiently complete from start,
AND
  • no revellation or omission of known fact(s) might hurt the interest or feelings of the person, or
  • an administrator is timely notified when the article will be submitted,
AND
  • the person has a clear public significance, or
  • the name of the person is considered public domain, that is in this respect: must have sufficiently occurred in the press or other acceptable references.
Though it seems to me that this allows for an article on Luc Verhelst, while undoubtedly readers may find such interesting, I do have serious doubts about the interest of the submitter: the content of the initial article does not give the impression that sufficient information is given so as to fulfill the eagerness of readers. With respect for both parties in a discussion that has been going on between them (and myself) for the last couple of days, this very fact should have made creation of the article improper. As an anonymous submitter, I am quite conscious of Luc Verhelst signing his articles by what I assume to be his real name. One can not write such article on my name or on the name of people using an alias, whatever my or their public role might be. Since Luc Verhelst can hardly be allowed to write his own article, it should disappear ASAP. -- 213.224.87.185 2006-05-26 07:04 (UTC)
  • Comment : please note that the article was not created by LucVerhelst, but as a personal attack towards LucVerhelst. I just put the AfD-banner on it (and corrected a factual mistake). --LucVerhelst 07:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Don't worry too much, Luc: I would think people looking at this page read more than my ironical last sentence. -- 213.224.87.185 2006-05-26 16:47 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep nom withdrawn, no deletes left. Kotepho 11:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Robinson[edit]

not notable CarolGray 18:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Caveat lector 19:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looking through the article's history, it looks like this was a stub about a Sesame Street character[21] until an anon's edits last week. Whether that's worth keeping either is up to debate, but at least it has a better notability claim than the current version. BryanG(talk) 19:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to article about Sesame Street character. There was nothing wrong with the article at that point (only at the point the page was taken over did it become garbage), and any Sesame Street character is notable enough for a WP article. -- Kicking222 19:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The IP address of whomever vandalized this article has been blocked five times. -- Kicking222 19:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to the article regarding the very notable Sesame Street character. Wickethewok 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per my comment above. It's just been a while since I've watched that show, that's why I didn't say that to begin with. BryanG(talk) 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I reverted the vandalism, fixed the PBS stub. Nominator, please consider withdrawing. Aguerriero (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unvandalised version (should have looked at history, sorry!) Caveat lector 20:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my nomination - sorry, folks, I should have looked at the history. CarolGray 06:43, 26 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 redirected --Rory096 20:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Willliams[edit]

Misspelled, orphaned duplicate of Alfred Williams Bob9000 19:21, 25 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. Flowerparty☀ 07:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubscast[edit]

"A free, new and exciting way to connect Cubs fans worldwide!" This article has serious problems with WP:WEB, and an Alexa rank of 946,479. I am recommending delete. --Hetar 19:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - For not even trying to make it not look like spam/vanity. Editing things that involve yourself constitutes vanity, which this most certainly is. Wickethewok 19:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, does "vanity" violate the rules in any way? Also, I would suspect that quite a large number of entries here are done by people involved with the content being noted. In many cases, that might not be a bad thing either. I've corrected factual inaccuracies on the entry of the company I work for, for instance. CaptainSer 19:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - You are specifically not allowed to write about yourself and groups you are in as per rulings by Jimmy Wales and the Arbitration Committee, though usually for larger organizations, this isn't applied. Wickethewok 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?? I'll totally admit that I could be wrong, but it looks like the vanity guidelines say that it's more of a cause for editing out the vain parts rather than deleting the article, and I believe the offending content has been removed, and the Cubscast article now appears to be totally objective. It seems to me that you guys are singling out one article, sometimes judging it by standards which exceed Wikipedia's guidelines (maybe using what you wish the guidelines were). There are countless examples as previouisly mentioned about other podcast entries which have no real merit (unlike this one), yet for some reason have faced no opposition, and are still included in Wiki. The real question becomes, what rules does the current edit violate? Your initial reaction was very justified, but the article has now been edited. I don't see why you can't work with the creator to make it "acceptable" instead of trying to delete it alltogether, while allowing hundreds of less-qualified entires to stay. Claytonb1987 21:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Well, I'll admit I don't know if WP has guidelines for what to do if the article is created, but I do that writing about yourself/your organization is explicity a bad article idea. Wickethewok 22:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Response I think I caused a lot of this trouble because I was the one that pointed out to them that they should have an entry. I should have added the entry myself, rather than telling them they should. But what’s done is done and the article now appears fine. I think everyone (even the orignal author) agrees the original article was in violation, but now that the article has been amended, I don’t see how it’s in violation at all. It’s objective, relavanet and follows the guidelines. If you’d like me or someone else outside Cubscast to add the same entry strictly out of quasi-principle, fine, but that just seems silly. CaptainSer 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yep, pretty blatant. Must really be diehard fans if they're trying after the last four weeks. Fan1967 19:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After the edit, no longer blatant spam, but still non-notable, and fails WP:WEB. Fan1967 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry, we're new at this. We've taken down the propaganda and given it an objective angle. How is a podcast that has been broadcast multiple times a week for over a year non-notable? A ton of other sports podcasters have borrowed ideas from our show. If people want to find out how to run a sports podcast, I can't think of a better resource.blueberryln 20:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand. Hundreds of podcasts are profiled on Wikipedia...this is written from an objective perspective. We're not reinventing the wheel here, we'd just like an entry. If you have specific suggestions, please make them known.
  • Keep. FWIW, there are many similar podcasts that already have articles, and many of them are smaller, much newer shows, so I don't really see a problem with this one. Claytonb1987 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not really up on the slang, but i assume by 'sockpuppet,' you're suggesting that user blueberryln made me up as a fake account to comment here. I do know him, and am an avid supporter of Cubscast, but we live over 2000 miles apart. Feel free to check our IP addresses. As I understand it, Wiki is supposed to be a venue to share information, and all we're trying to do is create a page that fits your guidelines, even though so many other podcasts that you let slip through don't even come close to your standars. If you have a problem with the entry, we would greatly appreciate your suggestions to get it to a point where it meets the criteria. I apologize if blueberryln or I have done anything offensive, as it has not been intentional. I feel like the outside links to non-trival published content on the article qualify the entry.Claytonb1987 23:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Sockpuppetry will get you nowhere. Wickethewok 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an attempt at an encyclopedia, not a fanzine listing Bwithh 21:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This no longer fails WP:WEB. Proven notabilty. CaptainSer 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure... - Yeah, ok... Welcome to all the new sock puppets/users who joined just to vote in this AFD. Wickethewok 23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Sure... - I did come on specifically to help the case (I'm not a sock puppet) because I am a fan of this podcast and they aren't violating any rules now, right? I use Wikipedia all the time, love it, and this seems fine to me after changes. If not, tell them what to fix, I'm sure they will. CaptainSer 23:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read the above sign for a response. Wickethewok 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sign didn't answer my question. As an established user, now that it has been edited, how does the entry violate any of your guidelines? Also, there is already a massive list of podcasts on Wikipedia, many of which are much smaller and have no outiside sources to validate them. CaptainSer 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are podcasts less notable than this on Wikipedia, they too should be deleted. Wikipedia has standards for notability. For an extreme example, you can't write about friend's dog for a Wikipedia article. Because of Wikipedia has such standards, you must prove a subject's notability in order for it to be on Wikipedia. Wickethewok 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chicago Tribune found it notable enough to write articles on it multiple times. RedEye newspaper in Chicago also did a color feature on it. WGN radio, one of the largest stations in the world, interviewed a host of the show about the popularity of podcasts and this podcast in particular. Celebrities find it notable enough to go on the show. Many thousands of people a day listen to it. Is that not notable? CaptainSer 01:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A local color feature, especially in something like RedEye, which has, let's face it, a lot of fluff, is not really a good indication. Also, there's a difference between something that may be considered notable locally (and just about anything about the Cubs is notable in Chicago) and what should be considered notable in a worldwide encyclopedia. I don't know about the number of downloaders: what is the bar for a podcast? I suspect the listeners for one team's fanbase are much smaller than a lot of podcasts with wider appeal. Fan1967 17:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I guess it's a good thing that the RedEye article isn't the only outside source that proves notability, but one of several. Have you guys actually looked at the new edit of the Cubscast Wiki entry?? Certainly you consider a New York affiliate of NPR, WGN Radio, and an in-flight magazine as better sources. 2 of those are non local, and WGN is broadcast nationwide if not world wide. Not to mention the huge feature in the Chicago Tribune. Also, the fan base might be smaller for a niche podcast, but because WGN is a national/worldwide station there are cubs fans literally everywhere. And, as it has been argued here before, Wiki currently hosts articles on 113 other podcasts besides Cubscast. Most of them are much, much, much smaller and lesser known, and a huge majority of them dont have ANY outside sources linked from their articles. Claytonb1987 17:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WGN-TV is broadcast worldwide. WGN radio is strictly local. Fan1967 17:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, regardless, WP:WEB makes no such local/national distinction, and Cubscast has provided other non-local examples in addition to the ones which you personally could consider local. WGNradio is also freely available on their website, which makes it internationally accessible. Claytonb1987 18:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WGN radio was also an original clear channel station, so they are local if you consider millions and millions of people and a 6 state reach local. I'm not sure an entire region of the US including one of the largest cities in the world should be called local. I also happened to listen to the interview on the internet in Canada. CaptainSer 18:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the guidelines that have been set forth by Wikipedia, this page for Cubscast appears to fully qualify in the arena of notability. Cubscast is a premiere sports podcast and consistently voted in the top of its category on PodcastAlley.com. If there are other areas it does not qualify in, please make them known. Otherwise we'd appreciate the removal from the "articles for deletion" category. Thanks. blueberryln 01:39, 26 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lowbie[edit]

Delete One line article about a term - Aksi_great (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- neologism. Reyk YO! 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism/gamecruft. -- Kicking222 21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see the term being searched for on wikipedia. It's not going to get much expansion though. - Richardcavell 23:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a home for MMORPGcruft neologisms. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 25 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. Whatever this is, it oughtn't to be where it is. -Splashtalk 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia API[edit]

I'm not really sure what it is, since it doesn't have much context, but it appears to be something about the db dumps, and doesn't appear notable. WP:ASR, WP:CSB. Rory096 19:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for now, but only because I have absolutely no idea what this article is about. For what it's worth, "Wikipedia API" gets 360 total Google hits, which doesn't show much notability. -- Kicking222 21:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia namespace. I guess. —Ruud 23:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I'm not sure it's notable enough for that. According to Robchurch, there is no official Wikipedia API existing anyway (or something like that, you'd have to ask him because I'm an idiot that can't remember things for 4 hours :o). --Rory096 03:27, 26 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheocracyWatch[edit]

nn campus political action group. Almost all the many refs given are on campus (usually self-refs). User21 20:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep baseless misuse of AFD by transparent sockpuppet. FeloniousMonk 20:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 55,000 hits in Google. --John Nagle 20:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Moderately notable organization, and nom ID was clearly created for this AfD. Fan1967 20:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep 3+ separate reliable sources, 8 editors, no discussion about problems on the talk page, new account. FloNight talk 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, possible bad faith nomination. Yamaguchi先生 01:27, 26 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Beachner[edit]

Seems to be some kind of light aircraft, but I can't tell from this why it would be notable NawlinWiki 20:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No notability is asserted (although I can't tell 100%), but adding in that "Chris Beachner" gets only 4 unique and 9 total Google hits, there's enough lack of notability to vote delete. -- Kicking222 21:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 23:19, 27 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Mahoney's Old French House Restaurant[edit]

Contested PROD. Advertising for nonnotable restaurant. Delete. Angr (t • c) 20:36, 25 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lounge Ghost[edit]

Unreleased amateur(?) movie. Director doesn't appear particularly notable either, but that's a separate issue. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: With no IMDb page, and no other reliable sources this really doesn't belong here. --Hetar 21:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also put on AfD Away(A)wake and Tim Morton This movie appears completely non-notable. "Lounge Ghost" gets only 89 total Google hits, and aside from the Tim Morton WP page, ZERO of the top 20 hits refer to this movie. Away(A)wake has an IMDb page and an Amazon page (with a DVD sales ranking all the way up at 54,818!), but only 15 people have voted on it, nobody particularly notable is in the movie, and "Away(A)wake" gets just 45 total Google hits. Tim Morton's only claims of notability are these films, and if neither of these films are notable, then neither is he. -- Kicking222 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ' It's a legitimate movie, but the information was leaked to me so you might want to wait till the information is made public. I looked at that Amazon page for Away(A)wake and I don't think it has anything to do with this film except that the director was in it. Those rankings seem to fluctuate wildly as well cause when I looked at it, it was 11,985. -- Butterfield 02:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given by Nominator, Hetar, and Kicking222. DVD+ R/W 06:24, 26 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 to Gift (law). Flowerparty☀ 05:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gift causa mortis[edit]

Delete Merely duplicates Gift (law), which covers contents of both Gift inter vivos and Gift causa mortis. Nothing links to this page except Gift inter vivos which I have also nominated for deletion. Caveat lector 20:46, 25 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 to Gift (law). Flowerparty☀ 05:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gift inter vivos[edit]

Delete Merely duplicates Gift (law), which covers contents of both Gift inter vivos and Gift causa mortis. Nothing links to this page except Gift causa mortis which I have also nominated for deletion. Caveat lector 20:45, 25 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 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taintslam United[edit]

"slap-on-the-ass award"? A hoax, right? Also, where exactly have they played? Aleph-4 20:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete claims notability, but there is none. Plays in a local inter-gender amateur leauge in the US, that's propably the lowest level possible for a soccer team. --eivindt@c 21:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure the stupid-sounding parts of the article are more jokes than hoaxes. But, of course, there is no notability to this team at all. They're an intramural team. Their website is on freespace. The article was created by User:Taintslam. I don't think I need to keep going. -- Kicking222 21:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 23:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.--Strothra 18:06, 28 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Like Monkeys[edit]

Speedied as patent nonsense and undeleted after being sent to deletion review. See the discussion - some pointed out that it was non-notable, while the nominator thought it was a notable Internet Phenomenon. RN 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not encyclopedic in any way. "very little point other than comedic value" and not much of that. Fan1967 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article may have taken some time to show up since it was just recently reinstated. Try refreshing. - Tomodachigai
  • Keep or merge. I continue to contend that there is some notability in the article. First, I believe it meets the standards in WP:WEB for notabilty under the clause:
Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

And while I can make no judgements to the triviality or not of the sites it's contained on. There are certanly multiple publications of the I Like Monkeys peom (existing on at least 100 separate websites). Which also makes it source independent. While there may not be enough content to qualify for a article of it's own, I believe it desurves a place in the Internet Phenomenon article at the very least. - Tomodachigai

  • Comment If it's to be kept as an internet phenomenon, it's going to need a lot better citation than "Several blogs and forums." - Fan1967 21:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough possible content for an article on this. At most, a mention in another article. Wickethewok 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even a mention somewhere else is needed, and it definitely should not be listed anywhere in the vicinity of the Internet phenomenon page. There's no background info on the poem (the article itself claims nobody knows who wrote it). I Googled the first three sentences of the poem (in quotes, of course), and got 75 Google hits, all of which were on blogs. No reliable sources have ever referenced it. In short, there's no notability here at all. -- Kicking222 22:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not a phenomenon yet; it borderlines on a weblog of vandalism - Richardcavell 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem isn't that it's not a phenomenon yet, it's that it was a phenomenon in the 1990's and it's popularity is winding down (see Internet Phenomenon for more information on how they work)
  • Comment. To me, the goal of an encyclopedia is to answer the questions "What is it?" and "Where did it come from?". The article answers both of these questions. Even if the answer to the latter is "No one knows". What a delete suggests is that this article not only has no value, but that, because of it's existance, it actually detracts from the Wikipedia. I created this article because I myself wondered those very questions, and I must admit, I was somewhat surprized when the article didn't exist. So I did the research, and found the answers myself. Maybe not the ones I wanted, but the only answers availaible. Then I figured I'd put that research to use, so that not only could I help others looking for the same answers that I was. But also, add to a part of the Wikipedia where it was lacking.

The article wasn't even given a fair chance for survival, having been speedy deleted almost as soon as it was created. It was originally thought to be "nonsense" or a "test page". Then the article had to go through the undeletion process, to finally arrive here at AfD. With only one contributer (myself), and a few hours of live time, of course it's small and undeveloped. All I ask is that you give this article a chance. Thank you. - Tomodachigai

This is it, Tomo. This is the chance. I admit I did not support its restoration on the DRV, but only because I knew what the result would be (hint: look at the above votes). They didn't vote "delete" because it's small and undeveloped; they voted for deletion because there is no potential for it to grow, or to develop. All "I like monkeys" is is a funny story. There are lots of them. It was briefly popular about 6-10 years ago, but it never rose to an Internet phenomenon like "All your base are belong to us" did. The latter was featured in a major syndicated comic strip, without further explanation (thus showing that Bill Amend thought a good number of his readers would get it); the former is ... just a funny story. (Not even all that funny, in my opinion, but to each his own.) The question is, how does this help the encyclopedia? What useful information could possibly be written about this story that cannot be divined by simply reading the story itself? "No one knows who wrote it" is not useful, because it's not true; someone knows. Unless some external source has written something about this story, there's no encyclopedic content that can possibly be added to this article. It may be unfortunate, but that's the grim reality. Powers 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and redirect to Internet phenomenon, it is seemingly a good example of a meme from the early days of the Internet (don't judge it by today's standards). Thryduulf 10:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Not notable now, not notable in the 1990s. (If merged into Internet phenomenon, move redirect to I Like Monkeys (internet phenomenon), and delete resulting double redirect. It's misleading even if accurate.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 05:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable nonsense JohnM4402 01:19, 29 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. — FireFox (UTC) 11:01, 28 May '06

Yehuda Kolko[edit]

  • Delete Not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Yossiea 13:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second User:Yossiea's nomination for the following reasons: (1) Kolko is presently being sued [22] making this a very dangerous and delicate subject for Wikipedia and (2) the article is clearly a POV attempt to add fuel to the legal issues about Kolko and (3) it therefore runs headlong into violating two crucial Wikipedia policies stated in: (a) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons ("Well-founded complaints about biographical articles from their subjects arrive daily in the form of e-mails to the Wikipedia contact address, phone calls to the Foundation headquarters and to Jimbo Wales, and via postal mail. These people are justifiably upset when they find inaccurate or distorted articles, and the successful resolution of such complaints is a touchy matter requiring ongoing involvement of OTRS volunteers and paid staff" ETC), and also (b) legal concerns and the potential violation of Wikipedia:Libel ("For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." ETC) (4) Finally, Kolko is not a prominent rabbi. IZAK 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be the epitome of an entry that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Mississippifred 9:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.--Jusjih 13:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If (still unproven) criminal and civil allegations against him are his only "claim" to noteworthiness, then there is no reason to keep this article. --Leifern 10:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bring up to appropriate standard or Delete. The concept of such an article is reasonable. This is, of course, what Wikipedia is about, getting any and all information on topics and making them accessable to the public, albiet in a proper standard. If we do not have a proper page, anyone interested will have to inquire into court documents. Evolver of Borg 10:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Danny 10:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Pecher Talk 14:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IZAK's explanation. Avi 15:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IZAK and Leifern. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 16:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since when does an encyclopedia have articles on every suspected molester? Since when do we consider blog entries reliable sources? Totally agree that this is entry is totally unsuitable. JFW | T@lk 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per IZAK and JFW, this is not worthy for an encyclopedia. --Shlomke 18:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable pedophile rabbi. 129.10.244.136 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Leifern and IZAK, particularly due to the WP:Libel issue. There is no indication that the case has even gone to trial yet, let alone reached a verdict. A mere "allegation" or "civil lawsuit" against a person is completely NN (unless the person is already notable, and even then it's questionable.) The only possible notability at this point is that he is an "Orthodox Jewish rabbi", making this a Man-Bites-Dog story. The article itself alludes to its NN, by acknowledging that the "impact [of the allegations] remains unclear." Bottom line: Delete now and revisit the issue once the criminal/civil cases are concluded and the societal impact becomes clear. --Nmagedman 11:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.4.151 (talk • contribs) May 25, 2006.
  • Delete although mainly because notoriety and notability aren't the same thing. And as the notoriety is based on unproved allegations, it's got to go.Ac@osr 21:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it in, and let the jewish world beware that the good old days are over, if you molest a child you will be plastered all over the net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.35.173 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep I just got round to read back issues of New York magazine today. This already seems to be a big deal in the Orthodox community, judging by the letters page of the last issue, and its only likely to get bigger. About Izak's objections, I can say in response to both points, that (a) distortions and (b) potentially libellous statements are easily eliminated by Our Friend The Neutral-making Phrase, namely (say it with me) "It is alleged". If really terrified, add "unsubstantiated" and "in certain quarters". About Nmagedman's objections, yes, the point is that he is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, with charge of a yeshiva. That's why it is a news story, and thats why it seems people are discussing it and would wish to read about it. Your objection is the same as all the people who vote to delete the articles about that kid who disappeared in Aruba because the only possible notability comes from her being a pretty blonde. Yes! Tragically, it does. Irritates me too, but nothing to be done. Live with it. The world is imperfect. Etc., etc. Hornplease 08:23, 27 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 was delete. Andre (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Forever[edit]

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable fan game with no third-party sources. The Kinslayer 09:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I seem to remeber seeing this as one of the most popular downloads on download.com for a while. Thats certainly why it was on my computer. Robinoke 13:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think you'd have to actually prove that with links and citations before anyone will accept that as a satisfactory statement. The Kinslayer 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In reply [23] has Mario Forever at the top of 2D platformers with four times as many downloads than the second place game. Even the game N comes after it. Robinoke 16:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - If only because Andrevan is going around flagging all these for deletion when certain ones, such as Mario Forever, should definitely be kept. The popularity of Mario Forever is what prompted me to make MarioWeen. It may not have had very many noteworthy mentions on magazines or on TV, but, well, a considerable amount of encyclopedic information on Wikipedia on software would have to be deleted on the same grounds. Andrevan is no doubt aware that nobody is going to defend these poor games; most folks come in and say, "Oh it fails WP: Software so I'll vote delete on principal" without even thinking of anything else. It's very one-sided and kind of sneaky, if you ask me. BlazeHedgehog 18:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldnt agree more. There are some significant fanbased games put of for deletion the last couple of days and being deleted on principle with hardly any comment. Robinoke 16:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your both coming across as pretty daft to be honest. For all your repeated claims of how significant this and other games have been, I've yet to see you ONCE come up with any of the proof that would save the article. WP:ILIKEIT says why merely saying 'It's popular' or 'I like it' doesn't cut it. We need news stories, and other associated THIRD-PARTY (translation: Nothing to do with the games creator) sources of information. If you can't get them, then Wiki policy states the article must be deleted. Blaze merely votes to keep something with no actual reason, and has recently been voting to keep solely based on who nominated the article, which is stupid, to be frank. And FYI Blaze, people are saying 'This article should be deleted because it fails to meet WP:X, Y and Z' because that's the point of having policies. They ensure standards are (supposedly) maintained and prevent cases like this where an article seems to be being used solely to attract more traffic to the creators site. Wiki is not an advertising service, and if someone can't be bothered to say WHY an article should be kept, then it wont be. If you think this article doesn't deserve to be deleted then prove us wrong. Find some news stories (and 7 word mentions in another article don't count either), put the information in the article, and cite them.The Kinslayer 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Wickethewok 19:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Wickethewok. Combination 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson House[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable college dormitory. No hits for "Johnson House" on University of Toronto or New College websites. Prod'ed, tag removed by anonymous contributor. Accurizer 21:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Even if it could be verified, I don't think a single residence building for students at the University of Toronto is even remotely notable. -- Captain Disdain 01:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --blue520 09:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clubmarx 22:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, nix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.230.176 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was withdrawn, apparently. Flowerparty☀ 05:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Adler[edit]

Until now he played 9 games in the second German league plus a few youth games. I wonder whether he is notable enough for the German Wikipedia, but for the English Wikipedia he definitely isn't (yet) notable. Deleteme42 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this, and I do therefore withdraw this. (I'm still surprised that every player who ever played in the second German league is notable for the English Wikipedia...) Deleteme42 14:01, 26 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kynan Pearson[edit]

Non-notable programmer. Notability not established by author. Fails WP:BLP Roodog2k 21:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'd tend to say that a lot of these videogame creators are notable to a wikipedia audience. - Richardcavell 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pearson is not a noted or remarkable or even particularly experienced videogame creator. On Metroid Prime 2, he is listed in the credits as one member of a team of 10-11 designers/design supporters, and is not listed as a senior designer or as game director. The job title "game designer" does not mean that you are neccessarily the creative genius behind the game concept. Also the MobyGames database comes up with no credits or info for Pearson except Metro Prime 2. Bwithh 23:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is not necessary to be a creative genius to be listed in wikipedia. davidzuccaro 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment but one should be notable.... Roodog2k 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wasnt saying that you have to be a creative genius to be in wikipedia (the bar for entry seems to drop daily anyway... perhaps one day wikipedia will be like an enormous phone directory); I was trying to make the point that just because you are a game designer, doesn't mean you are automatically significant.There are tens of thousands or more of game designers around the world - the vast majority of them are not notable. Pearson seems to have worked as a junior designer in teams for a couple of games. By Davidzuccaro's standards, we would have to have wikipedia articles for all 10 other people on the design team for Metroid Prime too. But why stop there? lets have articles for everyone on the production team too.... Bwithh 13:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment actually, there were, but they were deleted. Roodog2k 13:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this afd discussion is in danger of slipping through the cracks. I suggest relisting this discussion at the front of the queue Bwithh 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO by a long margin. Dr Zak 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Dr Zak. JoshuaZ 02:13, 31 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. Yanksox 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abington Friends School[edit]

Reason -- not notable. Also not capitalized correctly! Invitatious 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (I have moved the page.)[reply]

  • Keep generally schools are held to be notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. While this article is currently particularly poor (I'd earlier tagged it for improvement) it is about a real school [24] and should be kept and improved. Gwernol 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per above. Roodog2k 22:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, schools are notable, especially one that's been around since 1697. Accurizer 23:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Schools are not inherently notable and there is no policy or guideline saying so. That said, I would suspect a school founded in 1697 may have some sort of notability and editors ought to be given the opportunity to expand on that point. Fluit 18:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Abington Friends is well known in its own context, and the historical nature helps (though of course, the article could use some expansion). Dirk Gently 14:47, 30 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. Flowerparty☀ 05:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heber's Law[edit]

This is yet another non-notable "law" someone has tried to add to the Godwin's Law page, this time by creating a whole article about it. The alleged law was introduced in a Slashdot comment today. Totally non-notable. Grouse 22:04, 25 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 good arguments from both sides. As there was no consensus either way, the result is keep per default. --Ezeu 22:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanate[edit]

Appears to be a nn WP:NEO. Most of the Google results are for University of Florida merchandise (their coach is Urban Meyers) and a song/album by Michal Urbaniak. Metros232 22:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete
What on Earth are you talking about!?
This article is about Urbanates!, if you had read it you would know what that means!
It has NOTHING to do with "University of Florida merchandise" or any Song or Album by anyone!
As for it being a "neologism", Well if you had read the Reference links provided, you would see that the first link is to an article Written on the topic in 1955...
"Wilton lvie
- Technocracy Digest, Nov. 1955"
Now since when is a 51-year-old (at-least) word considered Neo-anything?
It is a perfectly legitimate Word and has been in use by the Technocracy Movement probably since it began in the 1930's. The term may not be widely known by most people today, but that does make it illegitimate, over the course of the 20th Century the word has most likely been spoken by Millions of people, just because you have never heard of it or it doesn't appear in many Google searches doesn't make it a neologism according to Wikipedia's rules.
If it is not in Dictionaries, then that is the fault of the Dictionaries, as I said it has been used for decades and printed in a vast amount of Publications.
I see nothing in the rules here WP:NEO, to warrant a deletion of the article, and nothing in the rest of your argument to warrant it either, I will be removing this template immediately unless you can show some sort of legitimate reason not to.
--Hibernian 23:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The legitimate reason not to is that an AfD notice is left up until the debate is closed by an admin. Your opinion on whether the article should be kept has been noted. It certainly does not end the discussion. Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Fan1967 14:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As Hibernian says, this is not a neologism. I'm not terribly familiar with the technocratic movement, but even so, I'm aware of the concept of urbanates having been around for a good while now, and from what I understand, they're a pretty important part of the whole philosophy. I think this is one of those situations where Google is not a great tool for gauging notability. At the very least this should not be deleted but merged to Technocratic movement. That said, I think the article should be kept, since it describes a fairly specific plan for a human environment, whereas the article about the movement is more about describing an ideology. -- Captain Disdain 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO. Very rare usage in this context. There's a usage regarding students at U of Florida, and a song by a guy named Urbaniak. After eliminating those, and Wiki and mirrors, only a handful of the remaining few dozen GHits [25] remotely apply to this usage. Doesn't seem to be in widespread use. Fan1967 14:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Captain Disdain. Aguerriero (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article needs more context at the beginning to make it more clear. A single sentence on the technocratic movement would be good. Yes there is an article, I know, but still the article should be understandable on it's own. Still it seems to be worth keeping for the time being to allow the author to clean it up. I would also like to see some characterization of the size of the movement in this article to give proper context as well.--Nick Y. 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We need a new clear definition of notable. The alternate meanings are more common, but clearly not notable under {{db-band}} and {{db-bio}}. Why should this, even less common usage, be considered notable? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I don't see where you're coming from, but just the same, I think it's worth noting that notability does not equal popularity or commonality (and vice versa). -- Captain Disdain 01:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But notability does mean, in the case of a word, have people heard of it, and do people use it? I don't see any use of this word outside the technocratic movement, or even any indication people are aware of it and don't see it deserving of a separate article. Fan1967 22:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, this is an old debate. Take OGLE-TR-122b, for example. I'd be very surrpised if you'd ever heard of it (I certainly hadn't, until I looked it up just now), you most likely don't even know what it is until you click on the link, and chances are that most people you talk to won't have heard of it, either. (In fact, chances are that more people have heard of urbanates than that.) Yet saying that it isn't notable would be extremely foolish. The same applies to various subjects that are notable to experts or practicioners of a given field but to which the vast, vast majority of even well-educated people are completely oblivious -- for example, Brauer's theorem on induced characters or branes. I mean, I personally feel rather strongly that notability is an important criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia and implicit in the "not an indiscriminate collection of information" rule, but I also strongly feel that notability cannot be determined by popularity alone. Just because something is somewhat obscure doesn't mean it's not significant (and, in fact, that's where encyclopedias really are at their most useful, anyway -- when they provide information about topics that are not already common knowledge). Not that this is the most hugely important topic in the world by any stretch of imagination, but it's not exactly random trivia either. -- Captain Disdain 13:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry, I don't see the comparison between a rather unique scientific anomaly and a recondite word that a minor movement has tried, and failed, to spread for fifty years. Fan1967 19:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's hardly a question of spreading the word. It's a (pretty old) word that is used to describe an admittedly minor but nonetheless significant concept. Whether or not that concept is widespread is of secondary importance. Furthermore, I must repeat that judging the concept's importance by Google hits is not a great idea. Google is an awesome tool, but it often fails us on matters like this -- if you're looking for sexual acts or current events or something contemporary that is being done in the scientific community or something related to computers or pop culture, things that the internet is full of, it does very well. It is not a great tool for determining the importance of 50-year old concepts that are no longer popular or topical, either because of their enduring nature or by virtues of nostalgia or appeal to retrophiles. In fact, I suggest that if you are not at all familiar with a concept beforehand, you can't properly judge its significance without proper references. -- Captain Disdain 02:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just to be clear. I don't believe this is a 50-year-old concept that is "no longer popular or topical". It never was popular or topical. Fan1967 06:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Is that assessment based on actual knowledge, or just belief? -- Captain Disdain 07:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's based on the fact that I've never heard the word, or read the word, or heard anybody use it. Do you have any reason to believe that in fact it once was popular or topical? Fan1967 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, that's my point -- you haven't heard of it, but that's no different from not having heard about a particular star or a theory. Clearly, then, there are things that cannot be judged notable based on whether you have heard of them -- so in order to figure out whether they're significant, you need to do research. In this instance, the practical difference between urbanates and stars and theories is that the internet is full of information about the latter simply because of their nature -- but when it comes to obscure and even outdated concepts like this, Google just doesn't do very well with them. If people don't talk about it on the net, it doesn't show up. Point is -- and please don't take offense here -- I don't think you really know whether the topic is notable or not, and you don't have a basis for evaluating it. There may well be something published about the topic on paper that could be used as a better gauge of notability, but I don't think either of us has access to any such publication. As for me, I don't know enough of the background to really evaluate how significant it is in the grand scheme of things, either, but what I do know is that I have heard the word before, I have discussed the concept before, and to me it seems worthwhile enough to qualify for inclusion. That hardly makes me an expert on the matter, but it does indicate, to me, that this is not just something utterly insignificant someone made up on the fly. Yeah, it's pretty obscure, sure, and of minor importance, absolutely. But Wikipedia is not paper. We're not about to run out of space here. This is not a hugely important topic, but it's not a waste of space, either. It doesn't do anyone any harm. It's not original research. It's not vanity. It's not utterly trivial, and the concept's existence is verifiable. It's most certainly not a neologism (as claimed by the nominator). It may even be of use to someone who's researching the technocratic movement. It has some historical significance. This is a far cry from an article about someone's garage band or pet or teacher or random crackpot theory (not that I think the concept of urbanates is particularly realistic, but just the same, this is not gibberish spouted by a lone schizophrenic with a net connection) or whatever. And let me be honest here: I'm not going to pretend that I'm going to cry over this article if it ends up being deleted, because I can't say that I honestly care all that much about urbanates, and it is a minor topic. But as a matter of principle, this just strikes me as a very weak basis for deletion. As I said, I think notability matters a great deal, but I don't think it can be accurately measured just by Googling and whether someone's heard about it in situations like this. -- Captain Disdain 23:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • So your argument is that it might have been notable once, and Google wouldn't show it. Sorry, but this strikes me as a very weak basis for retention. Fan1967 01:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Yes, well, it's not Wikipedia policy to remove articles on subjects that are no longer as notable as they were. Good thing, too; that would make for a pretty crappy encyclopedia. (Also, that's not exactly my argument, but rehashing it is unlikely to do make a difference here.) -- Captain Disdain 15:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • But it is Wikipedia policy to require some verification that the notability was ever there in the first place. Fan1967 15:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Captain Disdain is correct, it should be included if only for historical reasons (though that is certainly not the only reason to keep it). As I think has been established, it is not a Neologism or a made-up term, thus the original delete reason is not relevant. I do not currently have much evidence to present on how widespread the term ever was (mainly because most Technocracy related material is in paper form and only small pieces of it are online), however what I can say is that the Urbanate concept was an integral part of the Technocracy movement, and that movement certainly was/is Notable. It did once have a membership of something like half a million people in the U.S and Canada in the 30's and 40's, so it is quite probable that all of those members would have been familiar with the concept of Urbanates in at-least some way. The Movement still has several thousand members is North America today (though I don't know the exact numbers), and in recent years it has started to spread World-wide via the Internet (hence how I heard about it). I believe that does qualify it as a notable concept by Wikipedia rules. Now the Article may not be great (I did just write it myself as a short introductory piece to be added to later) and it is by no means complete. I am currently continuing research into the Concept and I hope other people with knowledge of it will also contribute. It will be expanded and explained better with further additions, (one of things I would like to research is the History of the Term, when Exactly it was come up with and by whom, etc.). So I would ask that this deletion template now be removed.--Hibernian 02:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the deletion template is not going to be removed until the AfD process is complete, Hibernian. That's just the way it goes, and how it should be. I wouldn't worry; clearly, there's no clear consensus to delete the article. (No clear consensus to keep it, either, of course -- but we tend to keep things by default.) -- Captain Disdain 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the article needs to be improved significantly, however the concept of Urbanates is as central to Technocracy as Energy Accounting. Without them a Technocracy could not achieve the performance rates that it claims. Most of the inefficiencies Technocracy purports to be able to fix are contained in the structure and design of cities; hence, Urbanates are designed to replace them. --Kolzene 09:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kput[edit]

Reason: Is the subject really notable? Invitatious 22:10, 25 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 deleted. —Phil | Talk 08:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skarlet[edit]

Not a character within any Mortal Kombat canon - most of the information listed in the article is nonsense Virogtheconq 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is speedyable, so my vote is speedy delete. ~Chris {tce@} 00:05, 26 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. Flowerparty☀ 05:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Type generator[edit]

Appears to be abandoned by its creator. Worth having an article, but need to start over. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a few bits of useless source code. - Richardcavell 23:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion: By total lack of context, the article and its history provide no meaningful content; the text is unsalvageable (CSD G1). --LambiamTalk 09:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a few bits of useless source code.--Nick Y. 18:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 20:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for reasons given by nominator and Lambiam. DVD+ R/W 20:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy d Hdtopo 00:35, 27 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 and delete —Whouk (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Jensen[edit]

Vanity article created by subject. Only one person has ever edited it -- me under TrustTruth and me under a separate and no longer used login, Southeast. In addition, this user has inserted his name into other articles, such as the one on Wally Joyner and one on Intuitive Eating (now reverted). Moreover, he is encouraging family members and close friends on his personal website to edit the Wikipedia article on him -- see http://www.colinandbethany.com/. TrustTruth 23:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete One of the products the article promotes: MarketSurfing - a stock trading system that claims to have given users an average 30% yearly return with negligible risk. This guy is a borderline con artist. Bwithh 23:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and speedy delete Vanity, advertising, and I'm not so sure about asserted notability. -- Kicking222 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and userfy, per above. ~Chris {tce@} 00:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 23:13, 27 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 22:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Wards[edit]

Delete - Clearly spam/vanity (article creator developed it). Few relevant Google hits, no given sources, etc... Seems like we've getting quite a bit of medical website/software spam recently... Wickethewok 23:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, How do I quote sources please? Geraint— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraintlewis (talk • contribs) 00:01, 26 May 2006

PS It's nothing to do with a medical website or software company but a new invention within the NHS

http://www.ukhcc.com/event/ltc/ltc_prog3.html#1 http://www.networks.nhs.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4810&mode=threaded http://www.bma.org/ap.nsf/Content/socialcaredischarges http://www.nhsalliance.org/cgi-bin/data/event00073.pdf— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraintlewis (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 May 2006

  • Delete - full of marketing wank. Signal to noise ratio too low. - Richardcavell 00:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm kind of unsure about this one -- the concept seems potentially notable enough, but it does indeed look like marketing wank. I'd love to see someone in the know weigh in on whether this is actually an article-worthy topic. Oh, and Geraint, please sign the messages you leave on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your posts. Makes it so much easier to figure out who said what and when. -- Captain Disdain 01:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- describes (admittedly another) UK Govt ploy for "care in the community". In this case, letting people die at home, to reduce the published statistics for deaths in hospitals. -- SockpuppetSamuelson

It's only "marketing" insofar as I think it's a good idea which health trusts across the UK are choosing to adopt freely. The whole point is to provide more support for the most complex patients in their own homes. There's no "government ploy", it's not under copyright idea, and I certainly don't make any money out of it!Geraintlewis 09:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The problem with the idea of merging with Primary Care Trusts is that virtual wards are multisectoral, i.e. they cross over between health (PCT, hospital trust, ambulance trust, GP practice) as well as social care. We know that these complex patients nearly all have both health and social needs. Geraintlewis 16:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag as articles needing sources.--Nick Y. 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've added a couple of external sites Geraintlewis 10:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and comment I'm not sure if this important or notable, but if I heard about this somewhere, I'd come here first looking for more info. --D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 16:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ritacco Center[edit]

Reason Possible non-notable arena, could be only notable to the school district. Invitatious 00:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the facility is rather unique in that while it is used by the local school district for sporting events, presentations and graduations, etc., it is also used as a major regional concert and performance venue, as part of a public / private partnership. In this way, the use of the facility is maximized and revenue generated goes to benefit the school district. If there are specific reasons or criteria that this arena fails to meet, they should be identified. Alansohn 01:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, and clean up if not deleted First off, this article needs clean up. It has a list of musicians who have played there ONLY to assert notability, not because the information is important. You wouldn't list every artist who's ever played at Radio City Music Hall, would you? In addition, the second paragraph is quite advertisement-y, and needs ot be changed a bit. Now, as per the actual deletion discussion: not to cancel out my fellow New Jerseyan's argument, but I simply don't think this arena is notable enough. I respect the fact that it's a somewhat interesting arena insofar as what it's used for, but I doubt it's the only one of its kind. While, in my reading of WP, I think a precedent has been set up for stadiums, this is only if they're of particular significance- for example, if a European soccer (footie) team plays its home games there, or if it's the largest concert venue in a certain state. 3,500 seats is rather sizable, but it's smaller than every minor league ballpark, and there's no way every (or even the vast majority) of minor league ballparks have their own articles. And the main use of the arena is just that of a school district, but that makes it no more notable than a high school football stadium. -- Kicking222 01:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 03:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Nick Y. 18:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: every single image in this article is a copyvio. --Hetar 21:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:48, 31 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_25&oldid=1081096997"