Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 23

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of remote administration tools

Delete because Category:Remote administration software already fulfills this role quite adequately without constantly attracting commercial spam. AlistairMcMillan 00:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Totally agree with nom. I don't mind lists if they contain other information, but this has nothing to separate it from the category. - Hahnchen 00:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary article. - Richardcavell 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the list, but I can think of a handful that aren't on this list or in this cat. Kotepho 02:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; per nom — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 02:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 03:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree with nomination. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. History page shows that commercial links have had to be removed often. -- tylerwillis | talk to me 06:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- spam magnet, listcruft and there's already a category doing an adequate job. The El Reyko 07:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 14:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Thorpe | talk 14:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 20:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nom said it all. TH 09:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fanboy Almanac (webcomic)

You can take a look at this webcomic here. This is not a popular nor notable webcomcic, it fails to attain an Alexa rank and the forums that they share with another comic manages around 75 members, which incidentally is roughly how many hits "Fanboy Almanac" achieves at Google. There is nothing to suggest that this webcomic is any different from the plethora of websites out there, this is not notable. - Hahnchen 00:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 02:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. SorryGuy 03:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Richardcavell 04:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Thorpe | talk 14:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Domthedude001 20:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 12:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sins (webcomic)

Yet another webcomic , this one can be seen here. Wikipedia is not a web mirror, the reams and reams of crufty material in this article should be on their website. This website is not notable, Alexa comes back with over 500,000, their forums have less than 90 members. A search on Google for sins venials (the webcomic name being Sins: Venials) comes back with 60 hits. About as notable as a dodgy prescription-meds sales website, which is to say, not at all. - Hahnchen 00:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 02:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. SorryGuy 03:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not particularly notable. Quatloo 08:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Thorpe | talk 14:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Domthedude001 20:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Doran . 11:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 12:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and I might add, that's a very rude nomination for deletion. Luprand
• Delete Article fails to meet WP:WEB Beno1000 23:31, 28 April 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 closed, Tuesday at 8.30. DS 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunday at Ten

Another random non notable webcomic which has made it to Wikipedia's infamous List of webcomics. Around for less than a year, this webcomic gets an Alexa rank of 500,000. Googling the phrase "sunday at 10" is obviously going to be useless as it'll bring up countless TV listings, so I tried a search for "sunday at ten" "wes david" (david being the author) and that came back with 10 scorching links. Using the figure 10 instead didn't help and a search using the name of the other author, "don stevens" fared even worse. - Hahnchen 00:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. M2K e 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable webcomic --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 02:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. SorryGuy 03:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not particularly notable. Quatloo 08:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Thorpe | talk 14:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Domthedude001 20:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 04:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paradigm Webcomic

A webcomic which ran for about 18 months during 2001 and 2002 and can still be seen here. According to the article, it was "moderately successful", what does that even mean? What sort of context or frame of reference are they using? I googled up the author and the webcomic, by searching for "Aaron Littleton" paradigm. It came back with 18 links. And look! The top link is to Wikipedia at Aaron Littleton, which is why this is a multiple nomination. - Hahnchen 00:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 02:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. SorryGuy 03:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom.--blue520 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. The El Reyko 07:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Thorpe | talk 14:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Domthedude001 20:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete was re: ditto. Jerkcity 03:49, 27 April 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, as Jazzper seems to have accepted this is not yet ready for the encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 17:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jasper Sadubin

Non notable author —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.65.219 (talk • contribs) .

This is a real person who founded and writes for Doobi Inc. Publishing. Many of his works are referenced to on wikipedia!!! √αʑʑρεɾ 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, nn person. 1 Ghit, unrelated, same for his company (except no ghits). Jazzper added those references here. --Rory096_(block) 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulshit. Many of those references have been there for over a month. I contribute to wikipedia using those papers which are entirely real!. And ghits from www.shore.nsw.edu.au are related. √αʑʑρεɾ 00:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a real person who founded and writes for Doobi Inc. Publishing. Many of his works are referenced to on wikipedia as shown below!!! Articles such as Admiralty House, Sydney and Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia are completely based upon Jasper's works. √αʑʑρεɾ 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Jazzper, are you Jasper Sadubin? Please don't take offence, I'm just wondering. I was originally going to mention when the nomination was malformed that you had added the references to sadubin to the articles, however, you did make significant contributions to those articles. - Hahnchen 00:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I mean who are Doobi Publishing? They have zero net reference and User:Doobi18 makes the whole thing look dubious. - Hahnchen 00:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh, dubious. --Rory096_(block) 00:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Also seems to be WP:VANITY, as it mentions that "Jasper is also respected by many for his wisdom, generosity and valour." Perhaps userfy?--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY. -- Wizardry Dragon 00:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, is myself. But does anyone want to see these works? They exist and can be emailed; put on commons... √αʑʑρεɾ 00:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And i do think the ghits of me passing music exam as a kid are relevant ghits as i have done work on other musical things, and edited symphony, √αʑʑρεɾ 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Posting self published works and citing them as references is probably in violation of WP:NOR. That's just my take. - Hahnchen 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity article. Brian G. Crawford 01:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, absent any verifiable references to the existence of Doobi Inc. Publishing or the works attributed to this author. Eron 01:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not NOR violation, because my works in themselves are entirely referenced and do not put forth any points of view or theories not already put forth. Can you not read? I have all of the referenced works lying on this computer. I can email at request. √αʑʑρεɾ 01:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the absence of evidence to the contrary, delete as failing WP:BIO. The only Jasper Sadubin that Google knows about attended the Sydney Church of England Grammar School in North Sydney, Australia in 2003 and 2004 [1] [2], after having played football in the North Sidney Bears football club for children [3]. If we are talking about another Jasper Sadubin that is indeed a living and active researcher and publisher, the complete lack of web references seems hard to explain. Zocky | picture popups 01:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I can show the relevant material, give me an email adress. Plus, whoever said that the ghits are a different person? I think the fact that I have numerous edits on the Sydney Church of England Grammar School page would verify that. Oh, and someone might take the time to look at my userboxes... (Sydney Church of England Grammar School is also known as Shore) √αʑʑρεɾ 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment What I would be interested in seeing is not an emailed document or manuscript, but evidence from a disinterested third-party - say, Amazon, or a book reviewer, for example - that these books and their publisher exist. I could email you forty documents that I have written, but as they remain unpublished I can't go using them as references here. Eron 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned in the article that myself Doobi Inc. publish at a small scale, with a small circulation. How does it damage wikipedia to contain this article? √αʑʑρεɾ 01:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going now, but leave this be and you will all recieve Jazzters of the highest class. √αʑʑρεɾ 01:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, bribing editors with barnstars won't help you to recieve more keep votes.--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess it is settled, the article stays. √αʑʑρεɾ 02:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, how is it settled? There has only been one vote for keep, and that was your vote--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn and vanity. --Terence Ong 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Two things, firstly; what is nn? Secondly how is it vain? √αʑʑρεɾ 02:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• NN is shorthand for notable and WP:Vanity means it was largely written by its subject.
  • In this instance it means Non-Notable. SorryGuy 03:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to User Jazzper's page as the content seems more appropriate there. As the subject doesn't appear to meet our biography guidelines it doesn't belong as an article. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy or, failing that, delete. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Edit Conflict Userfy seems fine to me. Also, Jazzper, try to remember Wikipedia's standards for civility. SorryGuy 03:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets take an example; 10 years ago day, someone writes an article about JK Rowling, a completely unimportant writer that has never been close to having anything published. Her biography, by the same criteria would have been deleted. There was no way to know that a certain author would not rise to become famous. Wouldn't it be nice for wikipedia to be the first source on the internet to reference to Jasper Sadubin? And econdly, what uncivil act have I done? √αʑʑρεɾ 04:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Hope your ten year prediction is right. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - yes, User:Jazzper is this person, as came out of his conflict with at least one other editor. Said conflict made me truly wonder how far out of school editor/author is. Writings are about local places, so notability is so restricted. Shenme 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bad rhetoric. JK Rowling's first publications were by a major company. A mimeograph in the basement or a laserjet printer does not meet encyclopedic standards. I know that's kind of harsh, but this argument is far too gone. Teke 06:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete completely non-notable vanity page. If Wikipedia existed ten years ago and JK Rowling had posted a vanity page before she gained fame, then yes, we would have deleted her page as well. --Roisterer 06:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, really no notability or substantive claim thereof. This whole situation looks doobious. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- tylerwillis | talk to me 06:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a mere one mention on google. Quatloo 08:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine delete the page. Hope you're all on vacation when i re-create the article. √αʑʑρεɾ 06:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep; the article needs rewritten and reformatted, but if Jasper is a published academic, then the article has relevance. GilliamJF 07:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is that he's not a published academic. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 09:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not only for the article itself, but Jazzper's behaviour on this page shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. -- Chuq 08:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pure vanity page and not particuarly notable.--Cini 09:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:VANITY. As most of the page is gloating on the subject being cited on Wikipedia, it also violates WP:SELF. Probably protect the page from recreation, per his most recent comment. If he becomes notable, well, we can recreate the page then, but we need pay no heed to this version. Refer Jazzper to WP:FAITH, WP:RS, and WP:NOT as well. Morgan Wick 09:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the Hope you're all on vacation when i re-create the article remark was a joke. Derr. And secondly, I thought the fact that works are referenced to on wiki would 'add credibility. √αʑʑρεɾ 10:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Also delete Doobi Inc. Publishing, for the same reason: it contains basically the same content, and is similarly unverifiable. — Haeleth Talk 10:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy, userfy, userfy. Obviously Jazzper attempted to enrich the wiki with his own work, unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines. Now of course the article cant stay (non-notable, and vanity, adding his own references to articles), but it can go to his userpage. Reading the guidelines, I'm sure that even Jazzper will agree that he is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (compare, for example, that you are not included in the Brittanica either). Nonetheless, most editors start out with some addition such as this and I, for one, hope that Jazzper decides to stay and contribute to ther articles as well. And hopefully, a few literary prizes down the line, perhaps on his own bio as well ;-) Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 11:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I have another reasonable person who ASSUMES GOOD FAITH, unlike the rest of in this conversation; thankyou dearly Minister of War. I do actualy agree that this article is inappropriate. But are you saying that the references are invalid? That, is where you are wrong. The articles that I have significantly contributed to (and contain referances) are based upon other real' works of mine. Take Admiralty House, Sydney and Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia, for instance. Both are completely based upon works of √αʑʑρεɾ/Jasper Sadubin. On wiki you are meant to reference where your material came from. That is where it cam from. CHEERS, √αʑʑρεɾ 11:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Then someone may need to look at those articles from the point of view of no original research, verifiability, and reliable sources. Your own self-published papers, which others can only obtain copies of directly from you, may not be the best references to use. If you have based these papers on other published sources, perhaps you should be citing those sources here instead. I'd also note that Admiralty House, Sydney lists eight references and Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia lists six, so their reliance on your work may not be as complete as you suggest. Eron 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete non notable --Strothra 14:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable (84 results on Google). --Thorpe | talk 14:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Author requested deletion just above. We should also delprotect the page. --Rory096_(block) 16:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete and protect. User already has a detailed user page, so userfication is not appropriate. bikeable (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lazy Sunday Afternoons

Non-notable (student?) film. Doesn't even appear in IMDB. Misterwindupbird 00:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable movie --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. - Richardcavell 01:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn film. --Terence Ong 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It isn't notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. SorryGuy 03:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Thorpe | talk 14:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above/nom.
• Delete, before some wicked goverment finds this movie and uses it to torture people. -- Heptor _talk 21:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Lazy Sunday Afternoon, a hit for the Toy Dolls. Just zis Guy you know? 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is the 40th Dogme 95 film. It is listed in the wikipedia entry for Dogme and on the Dogme website - http://www.dogme95.dk/dogme-films/filmlist.asp. It might be notable for this reason only, but that still makes it notable enough in my eyes. Anyway... probably a bit pointless saying this, but I thought I'd do so nonetheless --Sammysam 10:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are well over 100 Dogme films now. All that appears to be required is filling in an online form in which you state you feel your film adheres to the Dogme "vow of chastity" (which this film clearly doesn't, in any case, though few, if any, Dogme films do). According to the Dogme95 FAQ, on how to become Dogme certified: "it is all up to the new Dogme95 directors. It’s up to their conscience and personal judgement."[4] --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 19:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infinitism (religion)

Brand-new "religion", which the article states explicitly was set up as competition for the already barely-if-that notable Universism (Infinitism has the potential to supplant Universism...). Google for "Infinitism religion haley" (to weed out a lot of false positives) gets 14 hits. Author keeps removing the {{importance}} tag, so here we are. Calton | Talk 00:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: a violation of WP:NFT and a nn religion. --Hetar 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Couldn't find a lot of relevant results on Google, other than of course Wikipedia and its mirror sites. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Given the nn nature of the religion, the article will not be able to give verifiable info any time soon -- it instead becomes a vehicle to draw potential adherents. Chart123 01:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: An obvious vote, since I'm the author; no, I am not David Haley. I like to peruse the philosophy portal and happened upon the article that I spun off into Infinitism (philosophy), which contained a brief sentence about Infinitism also being the name of a religion; subsequent Googling turned up Haley's site. It seemed sufficiently different from the infinitist epistomological concept to warrant a separate entry, but only a stub (which I tagged it as from the beginning). The reference to Universism was an admittedly hasty response to the first {{importance}} tag, and could be reasonably removed; the article was NOT "set up as competition for the already barely-if-that notable Universism." Application of the WP:NFT policy, since this is in reference to religion, seems odd since most people would consider any religion other than their own "things made up ... one day." I apologize if I inappropriately removed the {{importance}} tag; this is my first time creating an article (for future reference, who decides when an {{importance}} tag can be reasonably removed?). I can't respond to the "nn" comment as I am not familiar with that abbreviation. Sketch051 02:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, "nn" stands for "not notable" --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ... and "not notable" means that even if the thing exists, it is not (yet) important enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia. In this case, there is very little to go on to suggest that this use of the term "infinitism" is notable, in the sense that it has meaning or significance to a large number of people. I would suggest moving infinitism (philosophy) back to infinitism (currently a disambig page), and add a few lines in that (very short) article about this alternate usage. Can't speculate that this will overtake patheism/pandeism/panendeism/whatever anymore than we can speculate that Judaism will overtake Buddhism or the like. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment,Two things: (1)If it's notable enough to be mentioned at all in the epistomological article, why is it not notable enough for its own stub (since it has nothing to do with the epistomological concept)? (2)I see the point you are trying to make about speculation, but I think the analogy (Infinitism:freethought::Judaism:Buddhism) is flawed; a more apt analogy would be Infinitism:freethought::Catholicism:Early Christianity. Sketch051 21:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • More like Infinitism:freethought::Catholicism:(some other religious order that someone thought of, but never went anywhere and died out before anyone else adopted it). We already know what happened between Catholicism and Early Christianity, so to say that Infinitism as a religion might enjoy any kind of success is sheer speculation. I would still include a line or two in an artice on Infinitism focused on the philosophy, but I can't exactly quantify why I think it's a good idea to do so - perhaps just as an illustration that it is possible to assign another meaning to the term. BD2412 T 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
        • The arguments in that sarcastic analogy are crossed. If you're going to be derogatory, at least do it literately. Sketch051 23:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I intended neither sarcasm nor derogation. I merely point out that this newly invented religion may never amount to anything, so it is improper to analogize it to a religion that we know to have temporarily overtaken the counterpart named. BD2412 T 23:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn religion, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 02:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Calton and Hetar. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - when one of the external links has to be a blogspot, it's not a good sign. -- tylerwillis | talk to me 06:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• comment Its like Time Cube except not notable. Roodog2k 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Domthedude001 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per WP:NFT - a nn religion. Rockpocket 21:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, non notable. -- Heptor _talk 21:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Robin Johnson 12:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article consists mainly of one editor's critique of this ahem, religion. Not only does this fall prey to WP:NOR, but even after extensive cleanup, "infinitism" would still not be notable in the least. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• comment Concerning the religious symbol so-called: first used by J.Wallis in mathematics in 1655. commonly used when sizes of infinity is no matter, or simply when talking of ω. ref. eg symbol for infinity. Listing the symbol as religious is somewhat "bogus". kyrre at mi.uib.no

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. DS 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King William V

Speculation, possibly original research. Possibly merge this info into the current article about prince William, but until he's king and actually using this name I don't think it's worth an article Hirudo 00:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:Not a crystal ball. As quoted from the article, "King William V is the name that His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales will supposedly take."--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. Chart123 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - all the info in this article is either completely speculative, or it's duplicated elsewhere.- Richardcavell 02:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 02:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC and Terrence. SorryGuy 03:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: though it might be slightly misleading, it could be redirected to the prince's current article, where the title is mentioned. -- Kjkolb 07:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. Preferably merge, though I can imagine most of this is already in Prince Williams article. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 10:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Not a crystal ball. San Saba 10:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see why the prod was contested. Eusebeus 13:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It isn't needed at all. --Thorpe | talk 14:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No point in a merge, this is speculation. --Knucmo2 14:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no such thing as "wrongly deprodded" - just means that someone wants a discussion on a point that is not a candidate for speedy deletion (as is any editor's right). BD2412 T 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, this I understand, but with the obvious consensus this discussion is producing, there is no reason that this prod could not have resolved quietly without the extra work of the editors responsible for listing it for AFD and subsequent voting. Kuzaar 19:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to, then redirect. --Domthedude001
• Delete, We'll cross that bridge when we get there. Trapper 04:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as crystal-balling. And, is there any reason for the article having been blanked? Robin Johnson 12:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The name used by a prince is not neccesarily the one they would use as king. For example, Charles could use William, or William could use another name, or William could die before his Dad or his Grannie, etc: ie too crystal ball-ish for inclusion. youngamerican (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: either jumping the gun or time-traveling. In this time frame, such a person with that title does not exist as of yet

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel ^§ 00:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Besant

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

The article is full of lies. None of the albums in the discography exist and their names along with those of The Cortez Trio are complete nonsense. This article along with edits to others were created by Chinamanjoe who is Justin Besant. He is a high school student nothing more. He has never toured through Canada and The Cortez Trio is him and two friends performing at Cafe Bleu which is a school music recital. There has been continued vandalism of other pages such as Annie Besant who Chinamanjoe claims that Justin Besant is the great-nephew of. However if this were true, Justin Besant would be well over 90 years old. Also, the only record of Justin Besant is on self-editable webpages such as this and http://www.last.fm. If one were to look at his last.fm page: http://www.last.fm/music/Justin+Besant they would discover that his albums seem rediculous and all there are are a few songs he made in his spare time on his keyboard in his room. The pictures on his albums are also clearly stolen and the entire thing is obviously fake. This page was also made by Chinamanjoe. Yofoxyman 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, GBS
• keep, fairly popular in Toronto, notable i think —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.150.33.183 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete, couldn't find anything relevant on allmusic --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I dont know who Yofoxyman man is, but he is obviously some bored kid with too much time on his hands. He has made a variety of personal attacks as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chinamanjoe (talk • contribs) 2006-04-23t01:08:51z.

BTW, yofoxyman was banned for these posts. They are nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chinamanjoe (talk • contribs) 2006-04-23t02:05:23z.

Everything "Yofoxyman" has said above is a lie. He is just making personal attacks. He for some reason has something against this artist and wants to remove the page. There is a reason he is currently banned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chinamanjoe (talk • contribs) 2006-04-23t02:08:41z.

The above vote is by the article creator. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t02:43z

• Delete, WP:V -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t01:16z
• Delete, for all the reasons listed above Yofoxyman 01:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The above vote is by the nominator, banned for personal attacks. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t02:43z

• Comment, I guess Cortez Trio should be nominated for deletion as well. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, hoax. --Terence Ong 03:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Terence Ong; unverifiable, likely a hoax. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Terence Ong and TBC. Ludicrous hoax. Nothing on allmusic. This diff is also telling, wherein Justin Besant claimed relation to [5] women's rights activist Annie Besant. I live in Toronto, and I've never heard of the Cafe Bleu. I think Justin is just a kid at UTS [6] [7] [8] -- Samir (the scope) धर्म
• Delete per Terence Ong. Hoax and unverifiable.--Cini 10:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable I think. --Thorpe | talk 14:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I don't really understand this hoax concept. Notability, I can understand, but hoax i cannot. Is every page I create going to be considered a hoax, just becuase some wacko highschool kid said so? Is the Steve Koven page a hoax? Is the The Maytones page a hoax? Is the Vernon Buckley page a hoax? How about all those other contriubtions I have made. Are those all hoaxes as well? I think you should reconsider everything Yofoxyman has said. Remember, he is the one that is currently banned. Chinamanjoe 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable, likely a hoax.JCO312 21:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Notable. I think. -74.12.80.142 23:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Notable. -74.12.120.227 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I did some research. All IPs from the University of Toronto Schools are 142.150.33.***. In this case the following two votes are not from "the creator of the article from different school computers". They are from different computers around Toronto. Chinamanjoe 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC) the precedding two posts both made by the creator of the article from different school computers Yofoxyman 00:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Please provide a source for this statement. The preceeding two posts were made from different locations around Toronto. Not from University of Toronto Schools. Thank you.

Regarding Yofoxyman's previous statement which I have removed because it was completely false and would just be misleading. -- No, they most certainly were not! I would know, since 1) I didn't vote for them (and I am the creator) and I don't know who did. 2) those IP addresses are clearly not from the same building. 3) If you are referring to the University of Toronto Schools, which I assume you think I am from, which I am not, but anyways, those are not even the correct IP addresses, so I would appreciate it if you retracted your statement since it is completely based on speculation not fact. Thank you. Chinamanjoe 00:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

it has already been proven that you are from the university of toronto schools, also, i believe that UTS's IP addresses are actually registered to UofT and not UTS. Also, why have they all been from similar IP addresses and not from actual users. I also hope you don't plan on creating new accounts just to post here. Yofoxyman 00:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Prove to me that those IP addresses are from the University of Toronto Schools then! I think you might have some trouble, becuase as far as I am aware, I have only voted once. By similar IP addresses, I think you mean they are all addresses from the GTA (Toronto), which is where Justin Besant's fan base mainly resides. Maybe Justin Besant is more popular than you thought. Chinamanjoe 00:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

is it a coincidence that on all pages with mention to justin besant on wikipedia that Chinamanjoe is the only one who speaks in his favour? it's not.Chinamanjoe is justin besant, there's nothing more to the story, and hes behind everything. Yofoxyman 00:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally consider this to be a personal attack. I am certainly not Justin Besant! You have based that on absolutely nothing. Please take it back immediately. Chinamanjoe 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No chance, it has already been made pretty obvious that you are Justin Besant. This, last.fm, the fact that you saved the entire justin besant page on your user page so you would still have it to put up after it was deleted. Stop denying it, everyone here knows its true. You are your biggest and only fan. And I am not saying this as a personal attack, it is a clear fact. Yofoxyman 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is libel. Please retract your statements, they have no factual basis. I would go as far as to say that they are outright lies. Thank you. Chinamanjoe 01:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• keep he's somewhat popular. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.151.166.27 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep, Notable. Not a hoax. -70.29.176.91 00:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Justin Besant is great... well, ok he's tolerable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.223.134.138 (talk • contribs).
• Comment Does anyone else find it strange how all these people voting in favour of Justin Besant are making their first posts on wikipedia and that none of them have accounts? Very fishy. Yofoxyman 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, meatpuppet supported. --InShaneee 01:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep Justin Beasant's has reached ottawa and is growing in popularity - Ottawagirl298 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.231.134 (talk • contribs).
• keep, Justin's a notable musician —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.101.37 (talk • contribs).
• Comment strange how so many people suddenly started posting from IPs which have never posted on wikipedia before. can someone do an ip trace or something here? Yofoxyman 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, created by a vandal [9] , and supported by sock/meat puppets. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Sayonara per above. —Khoikhoi 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability TimBentley (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: notable and popular in Toronto 142.150.32.60 15:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Startup account 20:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable 142.150.32.215 22:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Popular, notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.150.32.215 (talk • contribs).
• Keep, released multiple albums —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.150.32.216 (talk • contribs).
• Keep, big fan, keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.150.32.219 (talk • contribs).
• Delete This IP and the past few are from UTS - see chinamajoe's post 142.150.32.215 22:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable as has released three albums and has his own website. In any case, policy isn't an end in itself, but a means to an end. I haven't seen any comments on what deleting the article will actually accomplish.--Primetime 04:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Protecting the integrity of Wikipedia is a goal worth trying to accomplish. The complete lack of any evidence to support this article in places you'd expect to find it, plus the fact that only the creator of the page and a handful of people from apparently the same ISP seem to think that this is worth saving, are enough for me to think this needs to go. JCO312 21:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination of a valid page. Turnstep 00:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Insignificant nobody, nn-bio, no idea why it should have an article--IPO 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete obvious soapboxing--IPO 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: can you vote on your own submission? — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, I think so: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion states that the nominator should provide a "Reason why the page should be deleted" and that this can be characterized as the "first delete reason." Шизомби 03:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, as seen below, IPO has recently been making multiple bad faith AfD nominations of notable 9/11 critics. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: His book "The War On Truth" currently has an Amazon.com sales rank of 18 388[10]. The book "Running The World" by David J. Rothkopf is ranked 100 in Amazon's USA politics category [11] and has an overall Amazon.com sales rank of 15 065[12]. While some of Ahmed's book titles look like conspiracy theory stuff, he may well be notable enough for an article, tho I'm not familiar with notability practices for authors. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t02:05z
• Keep Difficult to see this as other than POV nomination Dlyons493 Talk 02:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad faith WP:DISRUPT nom. Clearly notable author by WP standards. Шизомби 02:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith AFD nomination. --Terence Ong 03:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but substantially rewrite so as to minimise/extirpate egregious POV Badgerpatrol 03:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as a bad faith AFD nomination. Nefeez Mosaddeq Ahmed appears to be significant and notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above.--Jersey Devil 03:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep maybe speedy. Meets WP:BIO, but not as much as the others. Kotepho 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, verifiably notable author and an apparent bad-faith nom. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nomination -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; bad faith nomination. David Sneek 08:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Time-waste nomination. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 10:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up possible POV language or "weasel words" in article. Kuzaar 15:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable and notable author. Also, this is clearly a bad faith nom. IrishGuy 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 23:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayalais

About a "lost" story by Tolkien, hence unverifiable. Prodded by CBDunkerson, but prod tag removed by anon. I agree fully with CBDunkerson's reasons: "The article is simply false. No such character appears anywhere in Tolkien's works. Likewise, a Google search on 'Ayalais Tolkien' returns ZERO hits and the few hits on just 'Ayalais' show no relation to Tolkien." Eric119 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, if the story is supposedly "lost", one wonders how the creator of the article was able to write about it? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable hoax. Fan fiction? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (preferably speedily), nn, WP:V, WP:NOR, and quite possibly WP:NFT. Morgan Wick 09:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for previously stated reasons. --CBDunkerson 12:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Novelty and speculative. --Knucmo2 14:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep Kotepho 03:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Meacher

hopeless soapbxing of non-notable persons with minority fringe POVs--IPO 01:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete as above--IPO 01:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, very notable English politician. Look at his BBC News profile [13]. Bad faith nomination from IPO against 9/11 critics. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per TBC and BBC. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t01:30z
• Speedy Keep, bad-faith nom Badgerpatrol 02:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Difficult to see this as other than POV nomination Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad faith WP:DISRUPT nom. Clearly notable politician by WP standards. Шизомби 02:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I am harded pressed to remember I worse nomination for deletion. --Bduke 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, bad faith AFD, notable politician. --Terence Ong 03:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cortez Trio

Delete: WP:BAND, WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t01:25z

• Delete per nom. Nothing relevant on allmusic. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I've heard of them. I've seen them live. I own albums. What more can you ask for? Chinamanjoe 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Well, obviously you've heard of them, you're the one who created the article :P --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Besant. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t02:44z
• Delete. I am afraid one user having heard of them does not satisfy WP:BAND. SorryGuy 03:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, high school band, nothing on allmusic.com, no major record releases indy or otherwise, fails WP:NMG -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I don't really understand this hoax concept. Notability, I can understand, but hoax i cannot. Is every page I create going to be considered a hoax, just becuase some wacko highschool kid said so? Is the Steve Koven page a hoax? Is the The Maytones page a hoax? Is the Vernon Buckley page a hoax? How about all those other contriubtions I have made. Are those all hoaxes as well? I think you should reconsider everything Yofoxyman has said. Remember, he is the one that is currently banned. Chinamanjoe 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, fairly popular in and around Toronto 142.150.33.183 19:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It doesn't matter whether it is a hoax or not, the band is simply not notable enough. Chairman S. ^Talk 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable band. --InShaneee 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Startup account 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete For the same reasons that the Justin Besant page should be deleted JCO312 21:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep Kotepho 04:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas von Bülow

questionable notability, nobody pseudosceintist, left wing activist passing herself off as an expert--IPO 01:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete does not meet nessesary standards of notability, article is being used to shove a fringe POV at the expense of informative research--IPO 01:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, as he was the German Federal Ministry of Defence and Minister for Research and Technology. I have a strong feeling that IPO's recent nominations were all in bad faith, as the articles he nominated were all about critics of the 9/11 incidents [14].--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - ditto to TBC. This person is noteworthy for sure! - Richardcavell 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad faith WP:DISRUPT nom. Clearly notable author, German politician. Шизомби 02:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Difficult to see this as other than POV nomination Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. SorryGuy 03:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, person is notable, bad faith nom based solely on persons views and not on notablility.--Jersey Devil 04:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Ribeiro

I believe this was added by Mr. Ribeiro as an advertisement for his Senate campaign. Other than the fact that he seems to be currently running for U..S. Congress, I don't see anything in here to indicate notability, as it's a general guideline that being related to notable people doesn't confer notability. Joyous | Talk 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, doesn't count as advertisement as the candidate already lost --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. US Congress candidates that win are notable. US Congress candidates that lose are not (unless of course they were notable before being a candidate, but in this case that doesn't really apply).--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems that Mr Ribeiro is a losing candidate for the Republican Party primary who is standing for the Christian Party. He appears to have received 2000 votes in the primary so would be an outside chance in the election. No other claims to notability. Capitalistroadster 03:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per the nomination. Unencyclopedic, non-notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks something like a badly written college application, if kept 95% of the content should be deleted. --Ajdz 05:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing of note here Deizio 12:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. So vain..... please let someone else write the biography, as per Wikipedia: Autobiography. -- PFHLai 12:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He is highly non-notable, running a very losing cause in the 2006 election (the 1st district in Indiana is highly liberal, I think) and with no other good claims to notability. Grandmasterka 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. By the way, his user page has the same content. - Slo-mo 07:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete If radically NPOVed it might work. Startup account 21:01, 26 April 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okabe Nagamori

Non notable.Two google hits http://www.google.ca/search?hl=ru&q=%22Okabe+Nagamori%22+-wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.65.219 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment, please remember that the Google test usually doesn't apply to articles about historical people from non-English speaking countries--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, ja:岡部長盛. Appears notable enough to have an article on the Japanese Wikipedia. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not seeing nn. Kotepho 04:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Meets notability standards through Japanese wiki. Dspserpico 06:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Two google hits is great for someone who's been dead for 374 years. David Sneek 08:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep Kotepho 03:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Bamford

I guess anyone who attacks the president automatically gets their own article?--IPO 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete obvious misuse of article space to promote minority fringe POV and paint it as fact--IPO 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Bad faith nomination from IPO against critics of 9/11 --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with TBC. The subject of the article is notable. User:IPO is running some kind of campaign against 9/11 conspiracy theorists. - Richardcavell 02:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad faith WP:DISRUPT nom. Clearly notable author by WP standards. Шизомби 02:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the president of where? Dlyons493 Talk 02:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, bad-faith nom, nominator gives no justification for deletion in nomination. Seems to be one of a series of such nominations by this editor- admins might possibly consider some kind of sanction for disruption if the user persists. Badgerpatrol 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Scratch that (not my vote, which stands)- today appears to be the nominator's first day as an editor. I have left a note on their talk page in an attempt to explain the process a bit better. Badgerpatrol 03:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, bad faith AFD nomination, meets WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 23:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liam Jenkins

No legitimate claim to notability, other than a gross-out website and a couple of self-published books. Joyous | Talk 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. No results on Amazon [15] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This comment was placed in the AFD log page, moved here. Kotepho 02:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- per nom, and TBC. DVD+ R/W 02:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 03:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, NN. (Me too!) Colonel Tom 00:52, 24 April 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 non-consensus keep ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Adler

Possible vanity article. An important and accomplished person to be sure, but notable enough to warrant his own article? I don't think so. GT 01:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Expedia, as he seems to be the CFO of that company --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • He's the future CFO, beginning next month. Just to be sure that everyone's clear on that. GT 08:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not worth keeping as a redirect. Is the the kids visit with them frequently a new low in triviality? Dlyons493 Talk 02:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep; But major cleanup definitely necessary — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 02:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as the CFO of a major corporation is notable. Definitely needs some cleanup. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, CFO of a massive corporation, but definitely needs wikification (hence my tag). --Rory096_(block) 04:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article definitly needs work but it is notable. SorryGuy 06:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: there are many large corporations with CFOs, they go through them at a fast rate and they usually have little impact on society. Also, if comparable historic positions are counted, there are probably tens of thousands of similar people (think of all of the executives that old and now defunct companies would have had throughout history). -- Kjkolb 07:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Sillysailor, the article creator and principal maintainer, told me, "I was assigned by Expedia, my employer, to gather publicity for the announement of this new CFO."[16] I believe this speaks to the non-notability of the subject but you are free to use this information to arrive at your own conclusion. GT 08:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't say anything about notability, per se, just that the contribution was out of commercial interest. If Bill Gates hires someone (perhaps via WP:HIRE?) to add content onto an article about him, that doesn't make it non-notable, it just raises an POV flag. Notability is determined by the subject, not the author. Good information to know, though. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

By that I meant, if Bill Gates was really notable someone outside the company would create and/or add to the article long before someone at his company had to for "publicity" reasons. Obviously that was the case (presumably) with Gates but not here. Indeed most CFO's don't have much if any impact outside the their company, let alone future CFO's, and it probably would take a financial motivation to get someone to spend this much time to write an article for one who has no other notable (or notorious) characteristics. GT 09:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as above. POV needs work and the article has a whole lot of other problems, but notability isn't one of them. Morgan Wick 09:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per GT below. Morgan Wick 00:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep . Wikified and cleaned up slightly also. Rockpocket 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm still waiting for the first defense of the subject's notability. Sloppy and/or POV writing was not why I nominated this page. GT 03:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "CFO of a major company" isn't notable enough? Morgan Wick 03:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • By itself, no. What does a CFO do that is significant to anyone who is not either personally involved with or has a financial interest (or disinterest) in the company? I could see if Expedia was a giant mega-corporation whose operations have a great impact on the rest of society but that's hardly the case. Even putting aside the fact that he hasn't started his job yet, redlinks Mark Gunning and Gregory Stanger who previously held his position don't seem to have ever been involved with anything so significant that someone thought to write an article about them, which is why I find it relevant that this article was only ever written because an Expedia employee was told to do it for publicity reasons. GT 04:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or failing that merge to Expedia. Fortune-telling; not the most notable person with that name; stylistic problems; mostly that it doesn't say much other than Expedia has a CFO, who isn't this person, and the person he's taking over from, Mark Gunning, who could at least be reported on, doesn't have an article. Time will tell if either becomes notable. --Cedders 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I promised the article creator Sillysailor, who is currently blocked, that I would post his/her supporting justification for the article so here it is: "Micahel Adler is notable in the sense that he is in BusinessWeek because of this takeover. If it is good enough news for BusinessWeek, it should be good enough for Wikipedia, especially seeing as BusinessWeek is much more selective." (from here) GT 05:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 07:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limón International Airport

Non notable airport—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.65.219 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep. Seems to be notable enough, as it one of the only four international airports in Costa Rica--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Never know when you might need it Dlyons493 Talk 02:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Every other airport in the world has a page, why shouldn't this one? — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Metamagician3000 03:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable airport. --Terence Ong 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as airports are obviously notable. Carioca 04:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Englipedia

Non-notable wiki project - vanity page.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable wiki--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn wiki. --Terence Ong 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. SorryGuy 06:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Wiki ID of contributor is the same as name of page. WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, and WP:SPAM all scream delete. Morgan Wick 09:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moleware

It's a non-notable website, therefore it violates WP:WEB. Mr. Lefty 02:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. No Alexa ranking [17] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. SorryGuy 03:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website, spam. --Terence Ong 04:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, advertising —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardcavell (talk • contribs).
• Delete. (I prod'ed this one originally.) bikeable (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knox Blab

Non-notable community forum.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. It doesn't even have its own website.--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "Just because it is not relavent to your hometown it doesnt mean it isn't relavent. Just because someone in the world isn't a geek doesnt mean slashdot is irrelevant. There is more history of Knox Blab to come. We are just getting our information compiled. Please give us a few more days to get the relevant local politics involved. As you can see I added a few links from reputable newpapers in our area that mention Knox Blab or one of its former names. And yes it does have its own website, Knox Blab is ran by Derek Senter and Rob Levering who own funhouserock.com (their domain, their blab)" ShoeTick

A website must be known throughout a large region not just a single town, in order for it to be considered notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

East Tennessee is a region. Knoxville is often refered to but East Tennessee is about half the size of Ireland and is the actual area we are talking about. Knoxville is just the center and commonly refered to. - ShoeTick

Shameless self promotion by me. See the Grand Divisions of Tennessee. Teke 06:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Shenme 05:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 13:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

KnoxBlab and its previous incarnations have been the source for many other blog reports from such notibles as Instapundit (also Knoxville based) and have been on the leading edge of behind-the-scenes information that main-stream media won't/don't report about such regional/national subjects as TVA (largest goverment owned utility in USA and based in Knoxville), public offical term-limits (currently on appeal in TN Supreme Court and may have national impact), regional enviromental issues (Great Smoky Mt. NP and several national scenis river in area)

Keep: This forum has participants from areas far removed from east Tennesse - Florida, South Carolina, New York, Massachussets, New Jersey, and Asia are the first that come to mind.

Keep: knoxblab.com is the URL for this forum.

"Give an article at least a little time to develop; It is understood that some RC patrollers feel they need to take action before an article disappears off the RC page, but nominating an article for VfD within minutes of its creation is often inappropriate. Use the "Watch" button - it won't kill us if a questionable stub is created and sits around for at least a couple of days until the author gets a chance to work on it."

"'A month' isn't exactly a long time either; many VfD's seem to be based on 'this article's been around for a month (or 2 or 3) and nobody's worked on it!!!!!' Nobody knowledgeable about the subject may have found it (especially if it hasn't been categorized/tagged/listed) or had time to work on it. Not all editors are Wikipedaholics."

• Comment Enough of a Wikipedaholic to know that VfD has been gone for months. The AfD process is to promote concensus. The forum does not match the criteria per WP:WEB, plain and simple. It's nothing against the forum, it's that Wikipedia is not about external links nor a societal resource; it's to be an Encyclopedia. Teke 07:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm originally from Knoxville, and I vote to kill it per WP:WEB. Teke 06:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Optichan 13:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gameboyz

Webcomic that doesn't meet WP:WEB. It has just one strip and was launched today. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 02:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 03:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, advertising

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Six Shooter

Not notable. See Google results — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 02:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable DJ who's only claim to fame is for starting a non-notable musical movement--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. SorryGuy 06:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Cedders 20:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Who are the Ghost Towns? Startup account 21:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Matadors

More band vanity, and yet another example of why the prod experiment is a failure. Bachrach44 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No idea about the notability of the band but 27 mins from article creation, through prodding and deprodding to AfD hardly proves failure of the prod experiment. Dlyons493 Talk 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment This is far from the first piece of evidence I've seen that prod is a failure. I do some RC patrol, and whenever I use prod I find the author deletes it (without explanation of course), and I'm forced to take it here anyway. I'm probably going to stop using it fairly soon because I don't think I've had it work yet once. I realize there are some people who like, I just don't happen to be one of them. If you want to talk more about this, I'm game, but we should probably find a more apropriate venue. --Bachrach44 03:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the tag can be removed without comment, prod depends on the author either not being around, being too timid to object to the article's deletion, not understanding the deletion process or accepting that the article should be deleted. -- Kjkolb 07:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• CommentThis band is acutally a really big influence today in psychobilly (which is becoming a massive genre the world over) scene. If you dont believe me...google them. I can elaborate in this article as more info becomes available to me but right now (given what little info ive given) this article and The Matadors do deserve to be in here. Futhermore, when there is information on here about Lord Elgin the 11th earl of Kincardine, you don't see people like Bachrach44 saying that Lord Elgin is being vain do you? This entry IS legitimate, people WILL use this. Davis99913:47, 23 April 2006
• Delete Non-notable band. If they can't make it in the real world, they can't make it here. Fails WP:MUSIC as it is. doktorb | words 17:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• CommentI strongly object, they meet most of the WP:MUSIC criteria. You need to reseach these things BEFORE making these sweeping statements. If need be, I can go through it item by item for you with links to back it up. Let me know Davis999

• comment By all means, please do - you don't even need this invitation. Proving that they meet WP:MUSIC would go much further to proving your case than making random unverifiable claims of notability. --Bachrach44 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I certainly would like to know what "Horrorbilly" is - not a genre I have ever heard.. doktorb | words 18:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• cough neologism cough. --Bachrach44 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per doktorb and Bachrach44 -- Hirudo 02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too low on the Amazon ranking, not notable. Tony Bruguier 03:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not noteable enough, merely a vanity article.StumpyRaccoon 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep > Cleanup If cleanup is not done, then delete. Startup account 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenifix

Non notable web site. --64.231.65.219 03:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it has barely enough information to avoid speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not a webhost for private company brochures. - Richardcavell 04:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Richardcavell. I agree that this could possibly be speedily deleted as a combination of {no content} (since it's basically nothing besides a link to the company's site) and spam. -- Kicking222 14:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly Speedy per Kicking222. Kuzaar 15:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB. Joelito 02:28, 27 April 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steveism

AFD: not notable Rmcii 03:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Maybe even speedy delete with {{db-bio}}, depending. Definitely an example of WP:NOT. --Elkman - ^(talk) 03:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Elkman. Steveisms don't seem particularly funny to me. GT 03:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - WP:NFT. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - admins, please. - Richardcavell 04:56, 23 April 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 as obvious non-verifiable hoax by user with no other edits whatsoever.

[edit] Pandolf

nn or hoax Vincini Pandolfo has 21 google hits and Vincini Pandolfi has 43 hits Amcfreely 03:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - hoax. If you put the queries in quotes you get 0 hits. Same for "pandolfed". Mooning a native, O, how funny, I can not stop laughing. If this does not get deleted soon, it will kill me. Lambiam^Talk 08:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. — Haeleth Talk 11:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's unverifiable because it's made-up. That makes verification difficult. -- Kicking222 14:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Kent (Author and Consultant)

Delete, fails the google test (plenty of OTHER Peter Kent's, just not much on this one). Claims to fame are that he authored "Search Engine Optimization For Dummies" and "Pay Per Click Search Engine Marketing for Dummies". Real person, but not worthy of a page on WP. San Saba 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. These are hired guns, whose authorship is secondary to the notability of the series (which has a page at The Complete Idiot's Guide to...). Eusebeus 14:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The most widely reviewed and praised title in computer-book history, Poor Richard's Web Site gets under 500 Ghits Dlyons493 Talk 16:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, self promotion. --MaNeMeBasat 04:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Icarus 07:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music4krns

This might be controversial, but IMHO this fails WP:NOT. Most Google results are repeats ("omitted" in GSpeak). Also, it looks like it's just a big fat list of Korean pop stars. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This thing doesn't even have its own site. If every person on Xanga had their own Wikipage, 49 out of 50 hits of the "random article" button would bring up something Xanga-related. -- Kicking222 14:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad for nn freespace website complemented by entirely redundant list. Deizio 18:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kicking222. --Cedders 20:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 90% of this article was just copy and paste of Metarexand Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgegog, so perhaps a redirect would be more suitable, but I cant' decide which. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relic Hunter Rangers

Complete fanwank and vandalism. There is little to no information regarding the new Power Rangers incarnation and, if so, none of these characters would be them. - The One and Only 04:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. All made up and completely nonsenical info. 67.121.139.145 04:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (copy at [18]. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy body count

• PLEASE NOTE The article has undergone substantial redrafting since the start of the AfD. JoshuaZ 00:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Far from notable. WP:NOT a fan site. Any relevant material can be merged into Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I want to see the outcome of it. It needs to be wikified a bit when it's done. I suppose it's a bit fanboyish, but worse things are accepted on wikipedia. - Richardcavell 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 'tis listcruft to be sure. Next they'll be adding the names of the vampires. Then what they said as they died. Then how they affected the main characters by what they said. Chalk this up as a "Friendly casulaties" (sick) Shenme 05:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The article's writer gives several worthwhile uses for the body count, including literary criticism in the manner of Kenneth Burke. This is very insightful and unlike the drivel of many other Buffy articles. Why delete stuff just because some people can't understand anything beyond comic book level writing? This article enriches Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs).
• Delete - agree with Shenme, and if you "can't understand anything beyond comic book level writing" you aren't ready for an encyclopedia --Ajdz 05:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • ~~ ajdz, you're quoting out of context, which is kind of pointless since the quote you're butchering is about five or six lines above your twisted version of it~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs).
      • Only in a comic book... --Ajdz 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable listcruft. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 06:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a fan guide. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Voting often does not usually work on Wikipedia, and please do not blank my comments. Dspserpico 06:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (rewritten: Dspserpico 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC))
  • I quite agree. About 3/4 of the other Buffy dreck should also be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 11:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Well written, but I don't think it belongs on wikipedia. In fact, I think alot of the Buffy stuff need to be merged. Why do minor Buffy characters get their own article when minor characters from other movies and tv shows are put in a list? I think it violates some notability standards. Dspserpico 06:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the bastard offspring of listcruft and fancruft after a drunken one-night-stand. -M^ask 06:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- listcruft, fancruft, cruft all the way. And yes, 3/4 of the other Buffy dreck should also be deleted. The El Reyko 07:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Relevant material can be merged into Buffy the Vampire Slayer. David Sneek 09:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is actually an interesting and well-written article and not fancruft or listcruft. There's the core of a publishable article there but it's not I think for Wiki. Dlyons493 Talk 11:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - above average Buffy article, for sure. Why an encyclopedia should contain any articles on commercial products, however, is beyond me--is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, as it purports to be, or simply a catalogue of free advertisements for popular goods and services? In my view, all the content that smacks of fandom, commercialization, and marketing should be deleted immediately, but that would mean 9/10 of Wikipedia's content would vanish overnight, so, if other junk articles are to be allowed, this one should be, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs) . [19]

Third keep from the same IP -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - These passages alone indicate that the article is too meritorious to delete: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs) .

The above comment the 4th keep [20]-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Perhaps Buffy fans had a similar motive as the U. S. military had in using body counts, hoping to prove, at least to themselves, that the valiant efforts of Buffy and her friends were, so to speak, making a difference in the age-old struggle of the forces of good against the forces of evil.

• • The Buffy body count also helps fans, critics, and other interested parties keep track of the episodes in which, in terms of vampire or demon activity, the action was cooling down or heating up; as such, the body count allows individuals to chart the Hellmouth's least and most active periods over a seven-year time frame. For example, vampires appear to be far more numerous (or active) than demons, and demons were twice as numerous (or active) in season two than they were in season one. Likewise, vampires were almost three times more numerous (or active) in season two than they were in season one. Season four, compared to the other six seasons, is almost devoid of vampires, but the demons are more numerous (or active) than ever. In "Triangle," episode 11 of season five, Buffy bags her 100th vampire.

• • In addition, as Joss Whedon, who created Buffy the Vampire Slayer, has said that the vampires, demons, and other monsters in the series are metaphors of existential threats, problems, and difficulties that teens and young adults face. For example, Marcie Ross, an invisible girl, becomes invisible as a result of being ignored by teachers and her fellow students. Her invisibility represents being ignored by others, a metaphor used by Ralph Ellison in Invisible Man, a novel that recounts the effects of black men's being ignored by whites during the racially segregated period of the early twentieth century. By adapting Kenneth Burke's dramatistic pentad to the types of demons that attack Buffy and her friends, both as teens and young adults, fans, critics, and others can isolate, identify, and evaluate what category of existential crisis seemed to traumatize these characters during specific periods of their childhoods and later years. Such a tool allows scholars and fans alike the ability to analyze and assess both these threats themselves, the reactions and the responses of the characters who encounter them, and the effects of these threats upon their lives. By decoding the significance of a particular vampire or demon (or human) according to its existential, psychological, social, or spiritual nature and then weighing the number of times during a season (or throughout the series) such threats menace Buffy and her friends, critics and fans can better chart and understand the show's thematic as well as narrative arcs.

Bravo!

Delete A lovely article, but not, IMHO, for Wikipedia. The best place would be a Wookiepedia-type place. But for Buffy, natch. HawkerTyphoon 13:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article is well-written, but it's not a particularly encyclopedic page. And does the person above realize that, no matter how many times you post, it only counts as one vote? They've currently edited this AfD page seventeen times. -- Kicking222 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 14:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Well-written, informative, innovative, and actually useful--yeah, better delete it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs) .

Fifth keep from the same IP [21] -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are multiple votes for keep from the same IP address 207.200.116.133 and is the source of most of the unsigned comments. Somebody, please do something. Dspserpico 15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment The IP in question also accounts for a very large amount of the article's history, too. Warrens 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Well written but does not belong on wikipedia. Too notable as listcruft to be an article.--Cini 15:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kuzaar 15:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Absurdly non-useful. --InShaneee 16:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Smells like WP:NOR to me. This would be a good article for a Buffy website, though, it's nice prose. Warrens 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete'-per Cini. The Republican 16:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

*Delete Abstain for now. Note that I am going to userfy the article to me. At present this article should be clearly deleted but I'd like to possibly trim it and at some point make it into an acceptable article. JoshuaZ 16:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Anonymous IP 207.200.116.133 deleted Dspserpico's comment above from this page a few minutes ago. Warrens 16:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Same IP address just AfD'd my user page. I didn't do a damn thing to antagonize this person beyond voting for deletion on something that I thought was well written. Somebody, please do something. Dspserpico 01:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment IMO, removing votes should be countered with removing articles. But then again, I am quite hardcore over those things. HawkerTyphoon 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Articles should be removed based on their merits and our relevant policies and guidelines. Kotepho 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well, obviously. But I am entitled to voice my opinion on talk pages:) HawkerTyphoon 00:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A fansite might be interested in hosting it, if one doesn't already. Шизомби 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Given that Wikipedia is happy to 'host' a 'buffyverse', I cannot see why this article should be removed. It certainly does not meet my definition of listcruft. Colonel Tom 00:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've redrafted the article to remove OR, improve formating and grammar and wikfy. Wikification has some minor problems (with episode titles) that I will handled when I get a chance, but right now it looks like a reasonable list. JoshuaZ 01:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as prime fancruft. I don't mind Buffyverse articles, but details like this is taking it too far. -- Hirudo 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm torn! Anybody who cares about this kind of thing would most certainly find the list useful, but those people are few and far between. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and cannot have infinite detail, I vote delete. This list is far more appropriate on a wiki dedicated to Buffy, or a fansite. ~MDD4696 02:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ah well, looks like an hour of clean up can't do much to help a fundamentally crufty article. JoshuaZ 03:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Good intentions, and if nothing else, it looks clean. Userfy? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Well it doesn't make much sense to userfy an article which pretty clearly has no chance of getting recreated. JoshuaZ 04:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Yeah what the heck userfy it to me please. JoshuaZ 04:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Its now at the buffy wikia [22] -- Astrokey44|talk 09:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: In a weird twisted way, it is important information about someone whose profession is 'vampire slayer'. Plus Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 07:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe there is a Buffy the Vampire wiki that would benefit from this? However it is not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Cedars 09:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There sure is - this article is now on the Buffyverse wiki although that site doesnt have much activity --Astrokey⁴⁴ 10:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I was going to ignore this and move on, but it actually looks sourced and interested, so keep and expand it further. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Very much Delete. Uninformative, plagarised (cf. sourced), and entirely irrelevant. - Abscissa 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Er, why do you think this is plagarised? JoshuaZ 16:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Once all the worthless anime information is purged from wikipedia, I'll vote delete on this totally non-notable, fancruft, worthless article. But since Wikipedia is rarely consistent I will try to be. For the sake of consistency and in the face of the mountain of anime articles I feel this deserves a chance too. --206.191.28.13 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft nonsense. incog 15:06, 25 April 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States v. Schwimmer

Non notable Supreme Court case. Rory096_(block) 05:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC) I take that back (should have looked before so rashly voting to delete). The case is indeed notable and in the news. I should also note that it returns 32.300 hits on Google. Vote to keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable on uniqueness -- Tawker 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - USSC cases = notable... at least to the level I see wikipedia notability shifting... (I mean, supreme court case vs. action action album... if we can keep the latter we should have the former)... gren グレン 05:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "Non-notable Supreme Court case" is an oxymoron. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is no such thing as a non-notable supreme court case. Dspserpico 06:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: if kept, the article needs to be rewritten in a neutral point of view. -- Kjkolb 07:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you indicate more specifically on the article's talk page what parts or aspects strike you as insufficiently neutral? Lambiam^Talk 12:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite, as above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per CanadianCaesar. We should strive to get them all on here. GT 10:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep important and publicized Supreme Court ruling. TH 10:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Supreme Court cases are notable. --Terence Ong 14:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm hard pressed to think of a SCOTUS case that is not notable. Kotepho 18:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. SCOTUS cases are virtually always highly notable, and this is not the least notable one out there. Grandmasterka 01:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)\
• Keep this case seems noteworthy as I believe many Supreme Court cases would be. Cedars 09:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I would say that all U.S. Supreme Court cases are per se notable. This article does need cleanup though. --Eastlaw 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I would have to agree with the above that Supreme Court cases are de facto notable. Anyway, don't say "non-notable", please! Stifle (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Toronto 93 Highland Ave.

Decidedly non-notable building from a user who has an article he wrote on himself also on AfD. Also of note, the picture in the article is not the building described, illustrating further unverifiability and/or hoaxeshness and/or vanity fluffing. I know this because, 1) I took that picture a couple of days ago, and 2) I've never been to Toronto. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - not sure how to vote but it may be a notable botanical garden... interesting case. gren グレン 05:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The "botanical garden" part is just a weak and unsourced claim that certain wild flowers had been introduced there by the author of the article. There is nothing notable here, not even unsourced claims for notability. TH 09:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No attempt to assert notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 10:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the excellent explanation by the nominator. -- Kicking222 14:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nom has it covered Deizio 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing corrections I was putting in List of botanical gardens in Canada and had this originally listed in the booklet I wrote in 1991. I did not link it in the right place and put it in the Botanical Gardens section in Wiki. It should have been and will soon be linked on the University of Toronto Wiki pages where it should have gone in the first place. Links for the graphics were uplaoded in Wikimedia and now that I look, and I totally agree, when I made the jpeg link on Wikipedia, the photos were different and not mine. Perhaps someone can instruct me on linking from WikiMedia to Wikipedia??? If you go to my page on Media you will see the actual 93 Highland photos. Thanks for pointing this out to me an I do apologize. WayneRay 00:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

• Delete per nom. Copy of this, so unless the author is relinguishing his rights by releasing under the GFDL, it can't go here anyways. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: It's not just another house, but it's not particularly notable either. Peter Grey 07:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

'OK well delete or keep, either way it's not my house and it's not your house, but it is still the 32 room mansion (house) set aside and used by each President of the University of Toronto (Ontario) in the posh Rosedale section of downtown and has a 3 acre garden, ponds and rock garden with great botanical specimens. And it was taken from the above link, because I wrote the above link. Make a deciision and keep or delete, I will be back from vacation in New Brunswick in a week after my book launch and will either see it there or gone, your choice I leavee it up to you. WayneRay 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's weak, but I like buildings. Deet 02:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel ^§ 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Moore (actor)

Non-notable. Vanity page bio authored by the article subject. Delete I@n ≡ talk 05:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep.. and tell users to stop getting involved in stuff they dont know anything about Um guys... I shot my part over 2 days the other day... It hasnt been added to IMDb it takes a long time for most projects... If you give me your emails I can be happy to send you details of the film including set stills... Ryan Moore 08:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's nothing against you Ryan, but Wikipedia doesn't cover everything. How about posting the stills to myspace if you haven't already? Choalbaton 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• I dont have a myspace. I deleted it. If you need any info then I can email it to you. Meh fuck it I give up. People on here just wont learn. Ryan Moore 22:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete couldn't even find on IMDb... which is unheard of for new Western actors. If he is to be found there make this vote a neutral because I'd have to research more to decide. gren グレン 05:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- I@n ≡ talk 05:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete lacks notable content, author admits "small" role in unheard of film --Ajdz 06:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy and delete, nn -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -*Also, Id appreciate if you guys had messaged me first before decieding to begin your little protest. Isnt it better to know the facts first? Ryan Moore 08:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one would appreciate it if you would refer to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specifically WP:BIO & Wikipedia:autobiography. PJM 19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -*I cant believe Im not getting even a withdrawl. This will be fought for a long time Ryan Moore 09:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Just another 14-year-old kid's vanity page. Yeu Ninje 10:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (or userfy, but his user page already contains basically the same information). Applicable policies: WP:V. See also WP:VAIN. — Haeleth Talk 11:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -*I will say it one more time. I can provide proof. I will get the forms sent to ytou whatever but start thinking before acting people! You all have no idea what is going on and acting like you do. Before you post another thing then request info off me, I can email it to you. But Im sick your total bullshit calling this vanity. I am appearing CREDITED in a CREDIBLE film. If you all had LISTENED you might have realised that. Now I will even mail whatever is neseccary to the offices of Wikipedia but in the meantime KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH A SITUATION. I look foward to being able to back my info up and proving you all wrong. Cya tommorow. Ryan Moore 11:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - One last thing, to Haeleth: shove your policys. I am aware of them and they do not fit this situation. Ryan Moore 11:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- couldn't find anything verifiable. - Longhair 12:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He may or may not become a notable actor in the future, but at best he's only just shot his first part and this article is premature. Metamagician3000 13:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Note to whoever closes this afd: See also disambig page: Ryan Moore -- I@n ≡ talk 13:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and also delete the article on the related movie. Doomsday (2006 film) is an nn indie film with no credible names attached to it, no web page, and it hasn't even been shot yet. So how, exactly, is it fit for an encyclopedia? -- Kicking222 14:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable at all and has all the signs of a vanity page.--Cini 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn vanity. --TM 16:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, WP:V is non-negotiable. Deizio 18:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, not verifiable. Ryan, once your movie gets released and recognized on IMDb, it may find a place here.Shijaz 19:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete By the strict rules on notability, this person fails. doktorb | words 19:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above, WP:BIO. Don't call us, we'll call you. PJM 19:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy per above. Sorry to pile on, could not resist. Don't call us, and on this basis, we're unlikely to call you. Badgerpatrol 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I've appeared (credited) in more notable films than this and you don't see me setting up my own Wikipedia article. Ryan, your lack of civility is not helping your case. When you are a notable actor in a notable film, someone will create an article for you. Your taking such offence at this discussion is one of the reasons why it's not recommended that people create or edit articles about themselves. --Canley 06:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable bio. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:AUTO --Cedders 20:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Having a bit part in a low-budget film does not make one notable. If you become notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article, rest assured someone will make one for you. ekedolphin 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per WP:UP. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. (Would vote 'userfy', but there's not that much to move across.) --Calair 03:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above.--cj | talk 06:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel ^§ 00:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of authors on Islam by period and bias

Judging bias? Not exactly a game to get into... maybe this should be moved to "List of authors on Islam"... but, I think it's best to get rid of this. It does no good and it could be completely unwieldly since innumerable small pieces, etc. gren グレン

• Delete - this would work better as a category, if anything. There's basically no limit to the authors which can be placed here, as there are simply too many authors who've written about Islam to list them all. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too unwieldy Dlyons493 Talk 12:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, judgement of "bias" is far too open to POV. Probably permanently incomplete and surely there are general lists and cats already doing this much better? Deizio 18:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• "Delete per nom. Шизомби 23:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as utter listcruft. Can't be NPOV either. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayor Sam's Sister City

Originally proded by Kinu with a summary of, "Blog hosted on Blogspot. Tenuous notability; external references do not show this or ability to meet WP:WEB. Created by user who references himself in article; might be vanity page." Alexa ranking of 388,684. I am recommending delete as there is no evidence that this blog has independent verifiability (or notability for that matter) in significant third party sources. --Hetar 05:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no sign of notability, blogspot hosting especially questionable --Ajdz 06:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Deizio 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my original {{prod}} and other deletion recommendations above. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:27, 25 April 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 keep. Shanel ^§ 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contiki Tours

Reads like an advertisement and doesn't seem like a notable company anyways.CrypticBacon 06:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn I guess I didn't realize how large and well-known this company actually is. Withdrawing nomination. --CrypticBacon 03:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - advertisement --Ajdz 06:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Dspserpico 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs a clean up. Even though it is not clear from the article Contiki Tours are quite well know in Australia, and would seem to hold a large section of the overseas "youth" package tour market from Australia (can't find good verifiable source where this is stated though). As well as running/associated with two resorts in Greece and Bali under the banner of Contiki Resorts.--blue520 07:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Well-known company in Australasia. A search of an Australian New Zealand newspaper database gets 52 results so meets WP:CORP. Longstanding, verifiable and notable company. Capitalistroadster 07:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable within New Zealand. Also has had a neologism based on it (tiki tour). --Midnighttonight 07:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is an important company. I have tried to clean up the article a bit. --Bduke 07:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up, important for New Zealand. --MaNeMeBasat 09:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very notable company in the Oceania region. Needs a cleanup of sorts but definitely of some importance.--Cini 11:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has been cleaned up enough to stay (by Bduke), but would benefit from more work. A notable company which deserves a better article. Colonel Tom 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Definitely notable in Australasia and deserving of a decent article. I am going to nominate it for Wikipedia:New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight as it would benefit from some work. PageantUpdater 03:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Important company throughout South Pacific region. Grutness...wha? 06:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough I think. --Limegreen 08:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. But needs work. There was a company in NZ for many years called Tiki Tours.The NZ saying "Tiki tour" more likely came from that. Maybe. Moriori 09:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I was also unconvinced about tiki tour coming from Contiki, having heard of Tiki Tours ... and had checked my NZOD (which mentioned its source as an unspecified tour company), so was planning to have a look at Orsman when I get the chance. --Limegreen 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep contiki tours are well known in Australia --Astrokey⁴⁴ 15:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This company has operated in Canada for decades. I had no idea they were a Kiwi company 'til I saw this article. Fluit 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Labs

Gamecruft. I don't think we need an article for every area (or set of areas in this case) in Doom 3. There's already a list of levels in the main article, and I don't think it needs additional info. Hirudo 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- yup, that's gamecruft all right. The El Reyko

• Delete as per nom. --TM 16:47, 23 April 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 keep and cleanup. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-German (ideology)

Delete. This article has serious problems with POV, notability and verifiability. --metzerly 06:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Dspserpico 06:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep- It is definitely POV, but that can be fixed. I'm not quite sold on notability, but it is definitely verifiable (there's a good selection of links at the bottom). The El Reyko 07:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Many of the links are broken, irrelevant, in English/non-German, etc. The link to the German government report is about extremist groups and says nothing about anti-Germans. This article is much ado about nothing. --metzerly 07:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Volker Radke link, "cutupgermany" and "antideutschprojekt" prove that there is such a thing as an anti-german ideology. But, as I say, I am not quite sold on the notability of the concept. The El Reyko 10:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This article started its en:Wikilife on March 15, 2004, as a translation of the corresponding article on the German Wikipedia. Since then the two articles have evolved independently. The present German version also has its problems, which seem to be about NPOV issues. Verifiability does not appear to be an issue, based on the discussion and the external links. What is clear from the German text, but not from the English version, is that "Anti-German" is a self-chosen and self-applied label. The original creator (and translator?) of the article here, User:Leo Bauer, is a professed Anti-German. Lambiam^Talk 11:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup This is definitely POV, but it should have a place on WP, although it needs major Cleanup. Jonathan235 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Has POV issues but authors have made efforts to provide verifible sources and seems to be a subject of encyclopedic value. Needs a lot of work but is worth keeping.--Cini 15:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs work, but is notable subject. Tfine80 15:36, 23 April 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Portsmouth Hospital

Not notable, I don't even know where this building once was. Portsmouth, England I presume? Dspserpico 07:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I know nothing of this but my instincts tell me that this is a bad article about something notable. Can anyone improve it? Is'nt this what we are about? --Bduke 08:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree with you. There must be a lot to be said, but Googling turns up relatively little of interest so it's unlikely that much verifiable can be found easily. Unless that happens I'm voting Delete for now and hope to be able to change vote later. It can always be recreated in the future! Dlyons493 Talk 12:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: see [23]. Is a hospital that was founded in 1849 notable? I honestly don't know. — Haeleth Talk 11:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep its as notable as some junior high in downtown new york.... 88.107.243.35 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

OOPS the above post was made by me, I forgot to sign in, my bad.... (new computer, new ISP, hence new IP number for anyone sharp eyed enough to notice out there!) Jcuk 21:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Seems notable. This article can be expanded. Obina 16:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have wikified it. Choalbaton 18:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis that there I've noticed a bias in Wikipedia towards the genuinely historic and studied or the very recent, and against things in fairly recent (mid-late C20) but much more likely to be fully documented in things like local history archives and newspaper libraries than on the web. --Cedders 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the natural consequence of declaring that every school is notable is that every hospital is as well (there are surely less of the latter than of the former), and every post office, fire station, brothel, and such. The schoolophiles have made a mockery of any pretense at notability requirements of organizations/institutions/edifices. Carlossuarez46 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 09:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trumbull Escapades

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

non-notable fanzine-- Sasquatch t|c 06:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I got 20 google hits for it as a sidenote. Sasquatch t|c 06:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This magazine has definite plans to seek distribution deals and advertising, as well as taking subscriptions for its upcoming issues, it would be a shame to stifle such DIY creativity. I am eagerly awaiting issue 3. It's notable, it's just not on the internet. thanks! --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trumbull (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, but "has plans to..." doesn't quite cut it. I have plans to be notable someday but that doesn't quite make me notable. I encourage you to pursue your endeavour however, until your magazine reaches notability, it should not be included. This is the same with any emerging rock group or web comic. We do not write an article to publicise you (Wikipedia is not free advertising) but rather to note your achievements. In this case, I just don't think there's enough to note. Sasquatch t|c 06:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Complete vanity page. --metzerly 06:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --TM 16:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

hi its just not on the internet man! minor threat didn't have a website and they were as real as it gets. this is really more a perspective problem on you guys' parts. go to any hardcore show and ask them about trumbull escapades fanzine. hardcore is the only real music in america and trumbull is the only real zine in hardcore. signed, a fan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trumbull (talk • contribs).

• • Minor Threat disbanded eight years before Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. Delete. --Metropolitan90 08:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn fanzine. Deliberate lack of website would take a grand total of one hit away from the search result, in any case being referenced by other media is far more important and just isn't there. Deizio 18:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

it just doesnt have a website, it's plenty notable. plenty of current hardcore bands and contemporary hardcore fanzines dont have a website and are on our level —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trumbull (talk • contribs).

How can this be considered advertising? There isn't even any contact info. This fanzine might not be receiving the accolades of VQR or MRR but in certain circles is no less important. I rest my case: Sweet Deal didn't have a website. (Spaulding) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.253.109 (talk • contribs).

I personally have all issues and all versions of every issue of Trumbull Escapades. I have brought them along on many road trips, train rides, subway rides, and on airplanes to read. I know most content by heart and could quote at least half of it. In fact I often find myself referring to this magazine when asked information. Not only is the fanzine one of the few remaining american hardcore fanzines, it is also one of the best it's ever had. Its' greatness lies in the combination of a strong knowledge of hardcore, sneakers, general internet and related subjects, and the editors' unique sense of humour. Why would one deny the existance and importance of a fanzine because it has no website? First off why would this fanzine even want to have a website? If the editors have anything to say they will adress it in the fanzine, not on a website. Secondly I can't think of any "real" fanzines that ever had a website (not counting former fanzines turned magazine). I am appalled that in todays' world one simply does not EXIST if one does not have a website. So no, Trumbull Escapades does not have a website, for reasons explained above. Does that mean they are not a viable and important pillar of a strong american music culture? Does it mean they should not be represented on wikipedia? The correct answer here is no. Sincerely, Kevin Charles Alen.

• To all interested parties: the point here is this "topic" does not comply with the high standards set for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not a web-directory. Nobody is saying it's not a great, informative fanzine with a dedicated following, or that not having a website is grounds for not being notable. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable as meeting the standards, and in the opinion of all the experienced editors who have thus far placed a comment here, this topic does not meet those standards. Further "this should be kept" comments not backed up by specific references to WP policies & guidelines and supported by verifiable evidence will not do your case any good. If you do a google search for The New Yorker, you will notice that only one of the results is for the publication's own web site - the other 27,099,999 are from other sources which reference and verify the existence and importance of the publication. That's what editors are looking for when applying the "google test", which is just one small consideration made when considering deletion. Deizio 20:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NN. Not having a web page is one thing; not being mentioned by anyone else on the Internet is another. I find it hard to believe that something with all of two issues out has any sort of following in the hardcore community. Morgan Wick 22:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

if you find that hard to believe then i find it hard to believe that experienced editors are looking at this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trumbull (talk • contribs).

Did you all actually do a google search? I did and I saw a handful of metions on myspace, a mention in some dude's blog, a thread on some msg board where someone was looking for one of the back issues, mentions on a trade list on howsyouredge.com, etc. Its true that it was only important to a small segment of the hardcore scene, but it is at least as important as Wikipedia's list of fictional worms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_worms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.253.109 (talk • contribs).

Comment Twenty hits as per this straight-forward Google search. --metzerly 05:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I already said that... look up :-) well, no harm in some redundancy I guess. Sasquatch t|c 05:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Question Any of you nerds know how to download a movie(probably MOV, possibly FLV) from Macromedia Flash?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.250.112 (talk • contribs) .

Delete- per nom, Deizo and Morgan Wick. DVD+ R/W 21:05, 24 April 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agrammatism

Wikipedia not a dictionary --64.231.65.219 06:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• It seems you forgot to create a deletion discussion page for this article. I'm not sure how to fix that... Anyway, the article has been improved so much now by user Samir that I think it qualifies for Speedy Keep. David Sneek 08:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it is now a bit more than a dictionary definition and could be expanded at least a little further. -- Kjkolb 08:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Lambiam^Talk 08:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 12:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Current version looks like a Keep. Colonel Tom 14:08, 26 April 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inverloch (comic)

Another webcomic. No evidence of significant and independent publication or commentary. Delete. --Hetar 06:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 06:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I know we've had a lot of webcomic come up for AfD lately, but this one is an odd choice. I don't like Alexa, but here it serves as a good illustration. Most of the AfDed webcomics have had Alexa scores well over 100,000 -- often unranked or in the millions. Inverloch, on the other hand, has 29,822, which is good for a webcomic. Furthermore, a print edition is coming out in May from Seven Seas Entertainment, so it's not like it's self-published. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 07:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. 40,000+ Google hits, [24] #1 ranking on TopWebComics.com. [25] Feezo (Talk) 09:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: It's going to be in book form! Clearly meets the standard. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Inverloch is the number one comic in all relevant categories on topwebcomics.com.--209.102.172.207 17:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I don't believe topwebcomics is a reliable source for notability, nor is Alexa, nor are web cartoonist choice award nominations, nor is a book which hasn't been released yet -- but all of the above combined point towards keeping this article. -- Dragonfiend 16:22, 25 April 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. – Sasquatch t|c 07:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoints

I originally prodded this, but the tag was removed so I'm bringing it here. The article is spam. It advertises something I assume is some sort of web community. It's not explained at all what Zoints actually is, and to find out you have to join up, and I'm not going to do that. Anyway, it's not even close to satisfying WP:WEB The El Reyko 07:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advertisement Dspserpico 07:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert for new website. Sasquatch t|c 07:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's not an advertisement, I'm the System Administrator for Zoints and LivingWithStyle But it does not warrant a WP Page at this time. Perhaps in the future. The system is still under beta testing. This page was created by one of the many members of LivingWithStyle because it's been a long time in the making (about 5 years) and they're a bit excited to be testing it out for us. Thanks. --DaiTengu 07:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. --metzerly 07:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mental (band)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Delete. No attempt at verifiability or notability. --metzerly 07:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BAND. Feezo (Talk) 09:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. PJM 23:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DVD+ R/W 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

plenty of records available by this band www.lockinout.com www.revhq.com www.bridge9.com—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trumbull (talk • contribs) . 4 us tours, 2 euro tours

They recorded two EPs, and one LP. Here is a link to their Planet Mental CD on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009VI4WQ/sr=8-2/qid=1145912816/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-3184996-6795809?%5Fencoding=UTF8 Here is a link to their Get An Oxygen Tank CD on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AINMX/sr=8-1/qid=1145912905/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3184996-6795809?%5Fencoding=UTF8 Here is a link to all their records for sale from Rev distribution, including a comp they appeared on that had a photo of Dookie on the cover: http://revhq.com/store.revhq?Page=search&BandId=5286 Here is a photo diary of their first european tour: http://lockinout.com/media.html Here is a link to ebay for items with the terms "mental" and "lockin out" in the title of the item. (note: A lot of these items are not actually for stuff that has anything to do with mental, because a lot of people advertise other band's merchandise on ebay using these terms because they are popular search terms.): http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=bs&sbrftog=1&from=R10&satitle=mental+lockin+out&sacat=-1%26catref%3DC6&bs=Search&fsop=1%26fsoo%3D1&coaction=compare&copagenum=1&coentrypage=search&sargn=-1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=02135&ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi= I would add a link to planetmental.com which was a page which advertised for their record release show last june, but the domain expired and godaddy now owns it. :(

• Delete as per WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander James Burke

Unverified and unsourced. Little noteriety. Several published authors aren't featured on wikipedia let along contributors to magazines. Delete CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 07:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, tenuous claim to notability which is largely unverified, no evidence of claimed contributions which should be very easy to find in this day and age. Google search reveals just 29 unique results, 60 total, very few of which seem to reference this particular individual. He does appear to have contributed to the "comment" section of the Globe & Mail, but no evidence he is notable for excellence or distinction in his field. Deizio 18:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopaedic article apparently created by subject's wife's publicist. Just zis Guy you know? 11:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar Programming

WP:NOR Original research, self-posted Please read WP:NOR to understand why this is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Thanks. --John Nagle 08:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Article author deleted "prod" template, then deleted AfD template from Guitar Programming. I left explanatory messages in User talk:Nirelan. This is a first article by a new user. --John Nagle 08:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is an article about a college research project and there is no reason it should be removed. He thought I was the "Nick Ireland" in the article when it auctually reads "Nick Irelan" and talks about a computer science student (I am not a student of any kind). John dosen't even really read the articles he only skims through to find what could possibly be the slightest problem then asks that they be deleted in order to gain attention. I don't know him or have anything against him I just think he was mistaken about who I am. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nirelan (talk • contribs).
  • A lot of articles about (seemingly) non-notable subjects get created by the people responsible for the subject, so it seems like an understandable mistake. "Nirelan" might well be an abbreviation of "Nick Ireland". (That's not what it is, of course.) If you had been the Nick Ireland in question, that still wouldn't be the problem with the article - the problem is with notability, as others have said. Robin Johnson 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm with the attention seeker; college research projects are not notable. David Sneek 09:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It They are definatly notable when they affect a billion dollar industry. Google began as a college resaerch project. Think about how different the world would be if it was simply dismissed as not being noteable because its was a college project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nirelan (talk • contribs).
  • Nobody is dismissing anything. The problem is that Wikipedia is here to describe things that are notable, not things that might be notable one day. We don't know which of today's research projects will change the world like Google did: therefore we don't write about any of them until after they've changed the world. — Haeleth Talk 11:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Haeleth, delete with all due respect!
  • Google is notable because it is a major search engine and massive corporation, not because it was a college project! Robin Johnson 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research unless references are found. Feezo (Talk) 09:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• What refrences do you want? I linked to the blog. - Nirelan

Blogs are not considered a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. Please see the link for more information on the subject. Feezo (Talk) 10:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn project referenced by weblogs. Deizio 18:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Robin Johnson 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Mertling-Blake

Non-notable person. Only has 32 hits on Google. Two are Wikipedia and a handful of others are signatures to posts on forums. rhmoore 09:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tentative delete: seems to be vanity. "Contributing" to an essentially unknown "non-TV series" (i.e. a spoof credits sequence that describes itself as created by bored students; the name Robert Mertling-Blake does not even appear on the linked page), and contributing one article to Newsforge as part of a long series of reader-contributed articles, does not obviously establish notability. — Haeleth Talk 11:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. --TM 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Born in 1987 and yet to do anything significant. Choalbaton 18:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sci-Fi Moviescapes

Delete, nn, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #92,613 in Books San Saba 09:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn Eusebeus 14:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above Hirudo 15:27, 23 April 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 redirect. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregg hartsuff

I screwed up and didn't capitalize last name. Then I screwed up again by not just moving it. Doh! Ksm10 09:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Author requests deletion - no other editor WP:CSD G7 - Politepunk 10:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as CSD G7. However, have you thought about redirecting the page to Gregg Hartsuff? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gregg hartsuff, it is the best and most simple solution :) Grafikm_fr 11:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gregg Hartsuff. --PFHLai 11:05, 23 April 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. Akiyama, please use {{db-author}} in future. -- RHaworth 11:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Published and Online Alternate Histories

I am the creator of this article. I changed my mind and decided it would be better just to have an article on published alternate histories. This article is now redundant. Akiyama 09:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as per CSD G7. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christdot

Delete - The pun doesn't make it notable, and the fact that the article creator linkspammed the /. article shows that this is purely promotional. Nnp 10:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The page could be kept if expanded, true, but because of the linkspam, it feels more like an intentionnal ad. -- Grafikm_fr 12:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Slashdot. The site is well established (since 2001) and is as much like Slashdot as Ars Technica or digg, the only difference is the type of news it gathers. Christdot is to Christians on the Internet as Slashdot is to nerds on the Internet.--Will2k 02:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

· I'd say the type of news is rather relevant. I'd be more against merging it into Slashdot more than keeping it. --Nnp 08:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; no evidence this site meets the WP:WEB criteria. I'd be strongly against a Slashdot merge as these are 2 entirely different sites and other than the play on Slashdot's name, there is no relation between the 2. If it isn't deleted it should have a standalone page.--Isotope23 16:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Isotope23. Alexa rank of 441,355, fails WP:WEB. ergot 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Karada as copyvio. -- JLaTondre 12:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spacem-build up on the road

This, as an essay, is not appropriate for an article, certainly not in its current form File Éireann 10:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• More a press release than an essay; but in either case, WP:NOT applies. Wikipedia is not a free ads site. Delete -- Karada 10:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Reads like original work. Kevin 10:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Copyvio from [26]. Speedy deleting. -- Karada 10:41, 23 April 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, as with Jasper Sadubin. Just zis Guy you know? 23:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doobi Inc. Publishing

Vanity article, totally unverifiable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasper Sadubin. — Haeleth Talk 11:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as Google returns only a handful of hits (2 or 3). Feels like a vanity page too. -- Grafikm_fr 12:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the article fails to assert or show reasons for inclusion in Wikipedia as outlined by notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia WP:CORP.--blue520 12:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete unverifiable. --Strothra 14:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As with the Jasper Sadubin page, a vanity page which is not notable.--Cini 15:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, recreation of a previously speedied vanity page. The author has ambition, but he doesn't seem willing to pay attention to Wikipedia guidelines on this sort of thing. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 17:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Delete. bikeable (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 09:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Stew

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

I have refactored some of the comments from this page to the talk page to reduce the length that people have to browse through. This is not a statement that those comments are somehow not as important as what's here. Stifle (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing but shameless self-promotion of author's website. Delete. Burmaduck 11:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability, smells of self-promotion. Anville 15:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The page has been up for about three months until it came to the attention of the user nominating it for deletion (Burmaduck). If you look in the page history, you'll notice that the user tried to deface it. As that hasn't worked, now he's trying to get the page deleted this way. Burmaduck is a user who was banned from PS for repeatedly spamming the board.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.35.107.247 (talk • contribs).

Comment Page history shows no edits by Burmaduck before the AfD. Fan1967 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment As others rightly state, I didn't attempt to deface the article. Burmaduck

• Delete WP:WEB Alexa rank over 400,000. There are many political forums. This is one of them. Fan1967 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- fails WP:WEB. The false accusation of vandalism against the nominator doesn't help either. The El Reyko 20:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The accusation stands. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_Stew&diff=49745647&oldid=49740499. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.35.107.247 (talk • contribs). 20:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment My only alterations to the PS article have been additions of AfD, RFM and reverting vandalism. Your link shows that after my addition of AfD, someone else began editing the article. Burmaduck 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As stated by another user the page has been displayed on Wikipedia for three months until it came to the attention of the user nominating for deletion. (Burmaduck). Burmaduck, if the alias serves as the same as his handle on the site, is a person renowned for spamming the Lonely Planet website which he has continued to do for the last five years due to a failed legal action for plagiarism and once banned from the Political Stew site for grotesque racist abuse of certain members now tries to spam Political Stew. If this is the same Burmaduck he personally threatened one of the site administrators of Political stew who subsequently filed a complaint with the police. The motivation behind Burmaduck's request for deletion is more likely to be out of spite and has probably little or nothing to do with any contravention of the WED.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.71.151 (talk • contribs).

• Keep.. The claims by Burmaduck are biased as he was banned from the forum and was involved in a near-legal fight with the current administration of the forum. I think this site is in line with paragraph 1 of the WP:WEB guidelines, as it is a collection of published material of whom the majority cites its sources in well known international broadcasting agencies such as Reuters and the BBC. If it is not, then WP:WEB is against the nature of Wikipedia, as it only offers the chance to a handful of websites to be included in the directory. dr. manos 4/24/06 01:18GMT+2.
• Keep. Site is frequently the subject of discussion of a major entry in Wikipedia, Lonely Planet. The Lonely Planet website administrators/programmers would confirm this is reference is required.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.71.151 (talk • contribs).

Comment It's not that frequently discussed. It's more like users on LP mention it in passing occassionally. Burmaduck 23:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - seems to meet WP:WEB to me, not least re its links with Lonely Planet. Colonel Tom 00:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Question What links with Lonely Planet? I'm having trouble finding any. Fan1967 01:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete move along nothing to see here. -- Hirudo 02:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Issue of self-promotion seems odd as author never advertised the link on the Political Stew forums - was found independently by a user - nor anywhere else. Site is a non-profit and Political Stew is an obscure combination of words to be considered promotion. Google search for Political Stew does not show wiki link in top results. Given historic links with Lonely Planet and frequent discussion of it on their forums including contributions from their site admins, suggestion is keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.205.208.99 (talk • contribs).

Delete This entry on wikipedia is just an attempt at self aggrandizing on a scale that is up there with Ross Perot's. "the biggest single act of masturbation in the history of the world".

Keep. (Comment from author of original entry). I'm happy to remove entry on the basis of contravention of the WEP, although I don't believe that it necessarily does. There are long-standing links to one of your major entries in Lonely Planet, as well as mentions from Boots 'n' All. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phillipssolutions (talk • contribs).

Delete Lies and more lies. The above poster has on numerous occassions told us of his intentions to tie the site in with a national newspaper or corporate sponsors. He has every intention of turning this website in to a commercial undertaking and is shamelessly using this entry on wikipedia as a way to convince interested parties to invest money. This site is a non entity and clearly does not benefit a mention on this site.--Bashtard 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, the forum has a fairly decent number of members, but I just don't seen any evidence at all that this forum meets the WP:WEB criteria. I'm willing to reconsider if someone can post some evidence that it meets WP:WEB. Also, the nominator needs to WP:CHILL.--Isotope23 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Although I feel the page does meet the WEB criteria, there is little point continuing with a page that will be continually defaced. Please delete. (Original author comment)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phillipssolutions (talk • contribs).:Comment Bashtard why are you being so childish? Burmaduck 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: A quick lookover of the WP:Web criteria and the site in question shows that Political Stew does indeed meet said criteria. Burmaduck's intense crusade seems hardly founded in concern for the wellbeing of Wikipedia and appears to be little more than a petty personal grudge. His comments should be treated with more than just a grain of salt. However, caution should be taken lest he spam Wikipedia with gay porn links as he has done with both the Lonely Planet Thorn Tree and the Political Stew - this fact can be verified by moderators of both sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.45.215.130 (talk • contribs) .
  • Another claim that the site meets WP:WEB with no supporting argument of how it meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This is really a non-issue but someone apparantly with an axe to grind against the site felt like making it one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.105.25.23 (talk • contribs).

Comment If this is as simple as a non-issue, please explain how the article meets the WP:WEB criteria? Burmaduck 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We are a bunch of cheap and workshy lawyers who will be prepared to take up the case of why Wikipedia should put this article up. If Wiki still do not see reason then we will contact the London Met police and take out a criminal prosecution. Bet you are scared now--David Phillips and partners 19:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies to all at Wikipedia but this page has unfortunately been hijacked for a legitimate protest at the actions of the owners and administrators of the Political stew site. Banning people without reason and failing to give a justifiable reason is just not on. We are not going to just go away so sadly all other forays on to external sites by PS will be subject to this kind of attention. Bashtard

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. SushiGeek 09:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By any means necessary

This is just a phrase from a speech, not an appropriate subject for an article. Perhaps it could be merged and redirected to the Malcom X article, but as it stands I'd say delete. (The link to Wiktionary is misleading, incidentally, as there's no entry there.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Belongs in Wikiquote. Chart123 14:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

*Redirect to Malcom X. Redirects are cheap and it's a plausible search. JoshuaZ 21:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Merge and make a Disambig per Wick's second comment. JoshuaZ 23:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect. per above. Keep & Disambig. DVD+ R/W 21:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Josh and DVD R W. Morgan Wick 23:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • On second thought, it seems to be a partial disambig page as well. Keep the redirect, remove the Malcolm X-specific parts, and turn the rest into By any means necessary (disambiguation) with a link from Malcolm X. Morgan Wick 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, good point Morgan Wick. DVD+ R/W 00:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: The article leaves much to be desired, but I think there may be potential for a legitimate article. "By any means necessary" is more of an idea than it is just a quote. It symbolized the difference between the resistance advocated by Malcolm X and the resistance of civil disobedience advocated by Martin Luther King. ScottW 23:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per ScottW. Gosh, I wonder why Where's the beef?, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead, and Resistance is futile haven't generated at least as much momentum for deletion. Or even Turn_on, tune in, drop out. Should I be puzzled? Monicasdude 20:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  I'm a bit surprised at what seems to be a sarcastic reference to the idea that anti-black racism is involved. Aside from my own record in that area, all this "momentum for deletion" consists of one delete vote apart from mine... Taking your question seriously, all the examples that you quote are complete sentences, this is a phrase that means little out of context. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  Two delete votes, two votes to remove the individual article, 3 keeps. I'm referring to overall patterns of behavior, not to any particular user's actions. And "Where's the Beef" and the Franco quote have significant out-of-context meaning? Monicasdude 22:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  I don't know the Franco one, but even in the U.K. the "where's the beef" advertising slogan became known through comedy shows, etc. (My point, though, was that the analogy doesn't hold because they're all complete sentences.) Have the other three been taken to AfD? What was the response, and what were the arguments? I'd have probably argued against all three, but of the more thana million articles here, I'm able to look at a tiny fraction. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, but send to Wikiquote and merge with Malcolm X if possible. Bjelleklang - talk 01:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per ScottW and Monicasdude above. Look in Category:Political slogans and see what our de facto notability threshhold is for such things, complete sentences or not. This one is extremely important; I've certainly seen "by any means necessary" - as a standalone phrase - used to symbolize and express support for the flip side of the "I have a dream" aspect of civil rights. This article should be expanded, not deleted. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you really saying that you support Monicasdude's accusations of racism? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    I dunno, have you stopped beating your wife? In other words, if I answer your question in either of the obvious ways, I'm rhetorically trapped into agreeing with you that Monicasdude is alleging that you're racist, which you've just claimed here. I'll pass. I agree with Monicasdude's argument for inclusion, which I took to be that the topic of the article under discussion is at least as notable as the topics of the other articles mentioned. That's what I get out of his vote, anyway, but I'm sure I'm bringing my own assumptions to my reading... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    See how Beno100 was able to give a straightforward answer and you refuse to do so? What should I read into that? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    Precisely what's written into it - I'm calling you out on a rhetorical trap you're oh-so-cleverly laying. GTB don't play. I will say this - I'm kind of racist. I think I'll be the rest of my life learning to overcome prejudices that I've internalized without noticing. (Growing up in the South can't have helped.) I'm certainly capable of contributing to systematic bias, through action and through omission, if I'm not attentive. What do you want to bet I'm not the only one? Monicasdude is calling this AfD an example of systematic bias - is he right? I have no idea. I can't see into Mel Etitis's soul or that of anyone voting "delete", and neither can Monicasdude. His post is rude, but I don't know that it's wrong. Each of us can ask ourselves if the shoe fits, and there you go. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you. I know where you're coming from now in all of your oh-so-friendly, butter won't melt in your mouth, badgering of me. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Regardless of the final outcome, Wick is correct that we need a disambig page. JoshuaZ 15:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  On that note, the Boogie Down Productions album is actually called By All Means Necessary, which certainly refereces the Malcolm X quote, but isn't the same. Fixing the article now... -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Yeah, I can buy into making By any means necessary a disambiguation page and moving the Malcolm content to By any means necessary (Malcolm X) (preferably) or By any means necessary (quote) . I'm not so sure about keeping the band information though (see the talk page).
• Weak keep As per Monicasdude's comment above. Beno1000 23:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you really saying that you support Monicasdude's accusations of racism? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I am saying that I support his comment that some possibly less notable phrases have Wikipedia articles while this one does not, and could probably be seen as very notable. Beno1000 02:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification, something others don't seem capable of doing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 09:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNH Blue

A non remarkable shade of blue, that seems popular as it is (or close to) Pantone Matching System No. 288 and seems popular in logos/colour schemes and similar with yellow or white. I have not been able to find any verification that this name (UNH Blue or University of New Hampshire Blue) is actually used beyond (or even by) the University of New Hampshire, also on a side point other groups also seem to clam this as their shade of blue like Pace University. blue520 13:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see any reason to have this outside of an article on UNH. How much can you really say about a shade of blue? --Ajdz 04:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't deserve its own article. Chonak 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (UNH '79)
• Merge - Should be merged into a color Blue article having the nearest shade. The color is used by UNH, but beyond that I do not know. --Assawyer 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (UNH '05)
• Merged information into University of New Hampshire. UNH Creative Services confirms that the color in its logo is indeed Pantone 288 but the web page does not use the term UNH Blue. The color is indeed widely used. My impression from a Google search is that the term UNH Blue appears only in sports articles, more to refer to teams than to the specific color. Chonak 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Eclipse

Vanity from editor who exists to promote Antonella Gambotto-Burke. Publisher seems to exist mainly for the same reason.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Barely notable and borders on vanity.--Cini 15:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No Amazon hits, and cleaning up promotional content would leave practically nothing else --Cedders 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopaedic article created by subject's publicist. Just zis Guy you know? 11:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 13:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Instinct for the Kill

More Antonella Gambotto-Burke vanity

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hardly notable (54 sites on google) Again, bordering on vanity.--Cini 15:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopaedic article created by subject's publicist. Just zis Guy you know? 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pure Weight of the Heart

More Antonella Gambotto-Burke vanity

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable.--Cini 15:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but not because it is not notable. I think it is notable enough. Only, this is just blurb material, totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Lambiam^Talk 23:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopaedic content created by subject's publicist, no prejudice against later creation of a proper article on the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lunch of Blood

More Antonella Gambotto-Burke vanity

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, borders on vanity.--Cini 15:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd expect to find some of the reviews of these books on the web, but can't. --Cedders 23:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopaedic article created by subject's publicist. Just zis Guy you know? 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 09:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest (Culdee Fell Mountain Railway)

This was prodded User:Gwernol who noted doesn't require its own article. Was curiously unprodded, so bringing it to AfD. One sentence about a fictional "character" which doesn't warrant its own article. Eusebeus 14:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per original prod. Eusebeus 14:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends) if not already there, Delete otherwise. Hirudo 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, more of Kappa's handywork. San Saba 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squeezee

all info is already in the Squeeze play (bridge) article. I do not think it's a likely search term either, but if people disagree with that then a redirect would be ok with me. Hirudo 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Additionally, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. San Saba 17:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 04:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom or Transwiki to wiktionary. I'm one of maintainers of bridge pages, but we "inherited" that article. Nothing encyclopedic to write about it. Duja 20:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 09:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of literature about footwear

Originally prodded and removed. Unencyclopedic list of books. Wikipedia is not a bibliography. Eusebeus 14:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Query How do you "wrongly deprod" something? Anyone can deprod anything for any reason. Kotepho 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Deprodding without fixing any of the glaring errors on a page seems a mite counterproductive. delete as shoecruft Appropriate Username 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, listcruft, shoecruft. Tokakeke 17:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• I assume there must be an article on footwear or shoes, why not merge it there? Jcuk 21:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge- to shoes. DVD+ R/W 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete -- Hirudo 02:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete --MaNeMeBasat 04:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. listcruft. --Icarus 06:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If one of these books is the book on shoes, revered by all shoe experts worldwide, then merge that book. Please don't make shoe an indiscriminate collection of books that mention shoes. Weregerbil 12:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not merge. This list is unencyclopaedic and may constitute listcruft. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to shoe as a further reading list. This will be useful, especially considering that the article currently has no references at all -- it helps to point readers to other useful works. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Purely unencyclopedic listcruft. Beno1000 23:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abstraction_physics

This page appears to be (a) original research, (b) entirely unsupported by academic research or real-world practice, and (c) incoherent. It's my belief that it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, and should be considered for deletion. Rob 14:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete- this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. The El Reyko 20:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If it's heavily edited and published in a peer-reviewed journal, and subsequently becomes notable, it may be recreated down the line. Morgan Wick 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

delete. also [[27]] as the wikipedia qualifications do not apply there either. T.Rue 02:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete for reasons stated by nominator. Cedars 09:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

re-evaluate - read comment in articles discussion.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 editorialise. This is AfD, not Pages for Merging, and it was not appropriate to nominate it here: one could just as easily have merged the articles (took me five minutes), or have slapped "merge" templates on them (would take thirty seconds). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Munford

Prodded, which was removed. Bringing to AfD. This reads like a corporate site bio. Suggest a Merge to Sophos. Eusebeus 14:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, as the person himself is non-notable aside from his contributions to the company. -- Kicking222 14:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (or failing that, Merge), wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please try to assume good faith. Kappa is a good Wikipedian who happens to disagree in good faith with many other editors (including, I admit, myself). That doesn't mean it's fair to describe him as a "chronic de-prodder", as if he's out to eliminate WP:PROD or is not acting in good faith. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, as per above. San Saba 17:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete When I first came across this article it was nothing more than a resumé, so tagged it under CSD/A7. Then the author talked to me about it, and I decided to try and salvage it. Now, however, I do still feel he's non-notable outside of his own company. One quick question: If your vote is to merge the article, why not propose a merger rather than deletion? This is AfD not Articles to be Merged. AmiDaniel (Talk) 19:33, 23 April 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 no consensus. The keep argument is that the diner surpasses the notability guidelines at WP:CORP, which (I've checked) is absolutely correct. The delete argument is made by only two people, each with different reasoning. Cini (talk • contribs) points to the article being unverifiable which, it must be said, doesn't appear to be the case from what I can tell. Calton (talk • contribs) complains of a lack of Google hits, and he's quite right — but real, live publications that get the article past WP:CORP trumps the Google test any day. Calton's argument is strong, which is why I'm closing as "no consensus" instead of a straight out "keep". If you disagree, DRV is as always -----------------------> that way. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Becky's Diner

prodded by User:Rory096 which was removed so bringing it to AfD. Yes, it's a diner folks. Nn - suggest Delete Eusebeus 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, wrongly deprodded by a chronic deprodding user. Kuzaar 14:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. There's no such thing as wrongly deprodding an article. The rationale was that is appeared to be notable as it states the diner was featured on FoodTV and in a food magazine. You may disagree that it makes it notable enough to keep, or have concerns about verifying the claim, but that doesn't make removing the prod tag "wrong." Thatcher131 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Response. Why I call it wrong is that the contesting user decided to demand consensus on an article that doesn't even toe the line of notability. If you look at the discussion here you can see that the consensus points to a resounding "delete", and my issue is that the extra work of the editors that listed the article here and then voted could have been better spent improving Wikipedia in other ways; that's why I call it wrongly removed. Kuzaar 19:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete under the rationale that, um, it's a diner. -- Kicking222 14:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep being featured on the Food Network can be considered as establishing at least marginal notability. Hirudo 15:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Issues with verifiability prevent me from keeping.--Cini 15:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable local business.Obina 16:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, it's just a diner that someone on a show ate in. Not notable. --Rory096_(block) 16:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to neutral. While they have been mentioned in several places (including a small bit in the New York Times), they're apparently paying Food Network anyway, and they have just 518 Google hits. --Rory096_(block) 20:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, nn, or more correctly - REALLY NN -, San Saba 17:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, looks like an ad to me. Shijaz 18:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, shouldn't this kind of stuff be speedy deleted? -- Heptor _talk 22:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete speedy. Improper use of AfD. Nothin' to vote for. --MaNeMeBasat 05:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor is it free advertising space. --Icarus 06:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest Keep, meets WP:CORP with multiple media mentions (Gourmet Magazine and Frommers, Food TV). The official website also lists mentions in Esquire and the book Eat Your Way Across the USA. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable enough ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 20:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Trying out those mind-reading courses you took? The money would have been better spent on anger-management classes. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please try to assume good faith, Monicasdude. I know it's tempting to jump straight for thinking the worst of people at times, but this is Wikipedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Minorly famous. The Gourmet reference, I ought to point out, is from Jane and Michael Stern's "Roadfood" column, their look at backroads diners and other vernacular places.

Meanwhile, checking and comparing search results for "Becky's Diner" with other, actually famous restaurants:

Restaurant	Google hits overall	Google hits unique	Yahoo!
"Chez Panisse" -book -cookbook	161,000	773	78,800
"The French Laundry" -book -cookbook	89,400	718	52,100
"Charlie Trotter's" -book -cookbook	92,400	694	32,300
"Becky's Diner"	528	203	346

Doesn't compare very well. Hmm, but those are too upscale, you say? Okay, let's go downscale, using the type of eating places the Sterns have raved about in their Roadfood books and columns:

Restaurant	Google hits overall	Google hits unique	Yahoo!
"Mary Mac's Tea Room"	56,500	350	2,450
"Swan Oyster Depot"	50,100	397	13,300
"Arthur Bryant's"	38,600	514	25,600
"Doe's Eat Place"	15,500	422	1,790
"Sylvia's restaurant"	12,300	438	1,820
"Becky's Diner"	528	203	346

Still falling short, it appears. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So you don't think WP:CORP applies? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 15:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Glickman

Originally prodded by User:Zetawoof as autobiography. Prod removed, so bringing it here. Original prod could have more accurately noted non-notable autobiography. (Article creator is eponymous). Eusebeus 14:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Deprodded wrongly by a chronic prod remover. Kuzaar 14:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Move to userpage, as this obviously is non-notable in and of itself. -- Kicking222 14:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup Seems to have held some at least semi-notable positions at Illinois University, so may be worth an article. Needs some serious attention though. Hirudo 15:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, should never have made it this far. San Saba 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I prodded this as an autobiography. If this person actually needs an article (which I'm not sure of - the article is too full of pseudo-peacock terms to tell what's notable and what's not), let someone else write it from scratch. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to creator. I don't see anything here that meets the WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And you're apparently voting to keep without "regard to merits of dispute". Eusebeus provided his own reasoning here... calling that bad faith is insulting. --W.marsh 14:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, he didn't. He just repeated the mantra "non-notable" without giving any explanation of the claim. Calling that "reasoning" is insulting to people who actually reason. Monicasdude 15:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okaay, so now he's acting in bad faith because he didn't perform up to your standards... I dislike "delete nn" nominations as much as anyone but to call them bad faith is simply incorrect. --W.marsh 15:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I noted elsewhere (your RFAr), the person not providing a meaningful rationale for their opinion on the article is you, not the nominator. You posted that comment to 34 articles in 21 minutes... --W.marsh 15:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't intend to repeat this on every AfD involving Eusebus and Monicasdude. but I noticed yesterday that Eusebus appeared to be systematically AfD'ing every article that Kappa deprodded, and in many cases citing Kappa by name (a reversal of the Appeal to authority logical fallacy). We would do well to consider the merit of each article without reference to who nominated it and who voted keep. Thatcher131 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- JamesTeterenko 23:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interaction in Organizational Purchasing

I have a sneaking suspicion that this is nonsense; I also suspect it exists purely to promote the very odd website that it links to twice. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense and advertisement; Googling "Interaction in Organizational Purchasing" comes up with (literally) absolutely nothing. And, in fact, the site for which this nonsense Wikipage is advertising is also nonsense. -- Kicking222 14:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WTH, WP:BALLS, WP:V. and stuff. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Algerian Genocide

This article is based on a biased view of the Algerian war of independance. It is a confusion between the Setif massacre that took place in 1945 where between 15,000 to 45,000 (figures vary between sources)people were killed and the event of Algerian war of independance. In addition, France has formally accepted its responsabilities in the Setif massacre and presented its apologies to Algeria via its ambassador. The author distorts the words of president Abdelaziz Bouteflika who said that French colonisation was a genocide of Algerian identity, language and traditions, but never said that France perpetrated a genocide as in exterminating people. He was implying that the effect of colonisation was the destruction of the cultural identity of algerians. This also has to be replaced in the context, as president Bouteflika was replying in anger to a law that was voted in French parliement recognising the beneficial effect of colonisation. This law has been repelled since. The author also distorts his references as the Scotsman article referred to DO NOT claims that France killed 1.5 million Algerians so it is a false reference. I suggest this article should be deleted, as there are already some articles on the massacres perpetrated by the French rulers in Algeria, the article is just the point of view of the author and is full of inacuracies. Blastwizard 14:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - NPOV and redundant. Tokakeke 17:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. Choalbaton 18:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it because the genocide committed by a Western white nation and against a non-Western nation. Anybody may genocide Arabs or Africans and get no punishment. Even you cannot name tha massacres as genocide. The Algerian President and his people say it was a genocide. And the article clearly reflects the French opposition. I started the entry and I had put the info to Algeria and France pages. However the user Blastwizard deleted all of my contributions. I think this is another type of vandalism. He says that there is no court verdict about the Algerian genocide. Is there any verdict on Armenian 'genocide'. But there is an entry called 'Arzmenian Genocide' on Wiki pages. And we cannot change this article because it is under protection. Please and please delete it. Show once more how the world is as usual we know here.David Falcon 20:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Algerian president said it was a genocide of Algerian culture not people, obviously you don't get the subtlety of his language or more exactly you don't want to understand as it does not fit with your opinion. The exact words of president Bouteflika were Colonisation brought the genocide of our identity, of our history, of our language, of our traditions so it is your misinterpretation of this sentence that brought this article to existence, in addition the number of victims you wrote is unsubstantiated by any sources you gave. Would president Bouteflika go to receive medical treatment in a military hospital of a country that has comitted genocide on his people? Your contributions are in breach of neutrality of point of view. You are accusing me of editing the page of Algeria which is not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum for personal opinion, I had nothing to do with the article on armenian genocide I just pointed its existence which obviously upsets you. If you read carefully my post on the subject you will see that I pointed at that there was no indictment of the ottoman empire because it collapsed before international courts of justices ever existed (I suppose Nuremberg trial makes a precedence), but several parliements in the world have voted a law to consider it as a genocide. You may have an issue with the atrocities the French did in Algeria, and I said I didn't condone it, what I say is it does not qualify as a genocide they took place at a time when France could have been condemned it is not the case, and you are distorting the official opinion of Algerian authorities. It is not because western people killed masses of non-western people and in the case you are pointing that it qualifies as a genocide and I'm rather upset because your light approach to the use of the word genocide belittles some real genocides. Blastwizard 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. POV fork from Setif massacre, little usefull information without adequate sourcing. The BBC article says between 15 and 45 thousand people died, article claims 1,5 million. -- Heptor _talk 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Setif massacre, unless there's something else involving Algerians that people with a particular point of view would consider a genocide. Morgan Wick 23:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Distortions make a mockery of "genocide." For the same reason, do not redirect. --Ajdz 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• First of all a genocide is not only committed against the people but also their culture, identity, language etc. Just look at the conventions and treaties. Secondly the Algerians do not only say that the French committed genocide only against their identity. More than 1,5 million people were massacred according to the Algerian official records. OK. This is Algerian perspective. So add the French perspective but maintain the 'Algerian Genocide' title. Third I am not a full-Turkish.

• • "French and international public opinion must know that France committed a real act of genocide in May 1945." Algerian Senior Offical - Mohamed El Korso, president of the May 1945 Foundation BBC

• • "Algeria had "never ceased waiting for an admission from France of all the acts committed during the colonial period and the war of liberation." Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika BBC David Falcon 10:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all please add your comments at the end, not to hide the reasons why I nominated this article for deletion. You seem unable to read the articles you cite. You say the figure of 1.5 million victims is the official Algerian records, cite your references where did you find this ? Strangely enough when you use references to support this affirmation the references do not contain this information. Your affirmations seem to be very distorted by the prism of your opinion. As I said before I don't care whether you are Turkish, Chinese, English, Papu or whatever, what I care about is well referenced articles in Wikipedia not peoples' personal opinions. Now if you can provide a well documented research work by historians and scholars instead of reporting words from politicians I will reconsider my stance. And no genocide is a crime against people not against culture, president Bouteflika hijacked the word in the purposes of his political agenda. If you take the etymology of the word, geno is the greek root for race and cide comes from latin cidere killing it does not mean killing people's culture. And for your records I am not denying that colonisation has altered the identity of colonised country, but your articles are really far fetched in that matter Blastwizard 11:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. POV fork, misleading title. ergot 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and also "wack a rat" (delete) Algerian Genocide Claims (See Talk:Algerian Genocide Claims). I suggest that if David Falcon wishes to peruse this subject that he has a look at 1971 Bangladesh atrocities for an example of a suitable descriptive article name, layout and the level of references and citation. BTW this article was forked out of the Bangladesh Liberation War and to date had remain a copy of the text in the BLW. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. You have have just decided against what the Algerian people had to go through in their independence war. You have just denied that they have been maasacred by the colonial French Army. Shame on you Genocide deniers! User: Samothrakis

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexis Blue

Contested PROD. This unsigned band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. They are unsigned, their music is self-released, and I don't see any evidence of a national tour. Joyous | Talk 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, also all verifiable information seems to be provided by the band themselves. Kuzaar 14:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --soUmyaSch 14:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- They should be kept - This band have started a musical scene where they are from, they are an important part of the new music industry. A national tour means playing around the country, which they have done in many areas (Liverpool, Sheffield, London and soon to be Birmingham). They are being looked at by record labels and although they may release records by themself that is what music is about. Self creation and releasing. There are many unsigned bands on here which meet far less meet the 'criteria' set. Information about the band has been provided by fans of the band from all around the country. They are supporting signed bands and this has been mentioned in Newspapers and NME as tours. This all (Tours, influence, mentioned in national magazines) fits with the WP:MUSIC rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.238.119 (talk • contribs).

Comment: When they are signed onto major record labels and are widely accepted as notable, they will merit their own article on Wikipedia. Until then, however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kuzaar 15:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: 'widely accepted as notable' - I would call booked to play festivals and being payed for gigs, being asked by signed bands to support them and with over 5000 fans and 18,000 plays on Myspace as being widely accepted as notable. They are a KNOWN band in the Indie music industry and community, meaning they are known and regarded as famous. And before anyone asks, i am not a member of the band, just a clued up fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.238.119 (talk • contribs).

• Delete. Yet another MySpace band that is not widely accepted as notable per WP standards. -AED 18:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC and the myspace test, unless User:81.153.238.119 can provide verifiable evidence, like citations from reliable sources, of his/her claims above. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Affairs Gaming

The game only had 50 players at its peak and most of the Google results for the "Current Affairs Gaming" appear to be irrelevant, like "current affairs, gaming". -- Kjkolb 15:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Can this nomination be relisted? If it is, I suggest adding it early in the day, which starts at about 6 PM in the Pacific Timezone. -- Kjkolb 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why? Stifle (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Things listed early get more votes. -- Kjkolb 00:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above as a wholly nn site/game. -- Kicking222 14:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazilian UFO Magazine

Non-notable publication, no evidence offered of existence, "the only UFO magazine in brazil" does not imply notability. Until this can be independantly verified by multiple sources, it neither deserves an article nor belongs here. Also, de-prodded by a chronic de-prodding editor. Kuzaar 14:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. San Saba 17:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per norms.Shijaz 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. If someone wants to info for merging, please contact me or another admin. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merentha Mudlib

Doesn't meet WP:SOFT. 838 Ghits. Rory096_(block) 22:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. Innovation, notability, other criteria not asserted in article. Colonel Tom 01:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I deleted this and then restored it; I hadn't realized it had been relisted. Chick Bowen 05:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. WP:SOFTWARE is only a proposed guideline. Should we really be deleting according to it yet? Vashti 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure. Given that you don't need any "consensus" reason to delete an article, after all we could just write "delete per nom". Specifying WP:SOFTWARE at least gives some reasons and suggestions. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, then - can't find any indication of notability. Merge to LPMud as per Atari2600tim Vashti 18:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into somewhere related to LP mudlibs. It seems noteworthy enough for me to have created the article (there are a few ways that it's unique, and has some advantages over other mudlibs in some areas), and I made the stub in hopes that someone who uses it might improve the article. But, I am not interested enough and also don't have the time to expand it in any significant way myself. Nobody's seems to have expanded it in the several months of its existance, so I think that's enough lack of interest that I'm fine with it being deleted. Also I forgot why I created this article and not one about Merentha itself... I think it was so that Category:LPMud_mudlibs would be more complete. This should probably be merged somewhere like that. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 22:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Office "12" Ribbon

Already covered more extensively in main article listed in prod. Does not deserve its own article; wrongly deprodded by a contributor. Kuzaar 15:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There's no such thing as wrongly deprodding an article. Thatcher131 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Like "There's no such thing as a stupid question," there are always exceptions. This looks like one of them. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I should have said "inappropriately" instead of wrongly, my mistake. Contesting the deletion of an article that is covered more extensively in another place, and which clearly does not merit its own article, I consider to be inappropriate and perhaps even lazy on the part of the editor, who could have spent a little more time to look into the subject instead of wantonly removing prod tags- which, if you check his recent hundred or so edits, all but a handful are exactly that. Kuzaar 12:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, says the guy who prod'd it. Warrens 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per norm. San Saba 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Main article covers "Ribbon" well! Shijaz 18:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Really trivial. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. If someone wants the information for merging, please contact me or another admin. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 15:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Night of the Sentinels (Part 2)

prodded, which was removed. Single line describing an episode of the X-men. Eusebeus 15:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

what is wrong with it, short and sweet Fallen Angel ^talk 19:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this is not notable. TH 09:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Invalid, since there was already a vote to delete before you. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or at best, created Episodes of X-Men (Season 1) and merge a synopisis there. No reason for a separate article for every episode. Vastly more popular shows don't have separate articles for every episode.--Isotope23 15:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Ajdz 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge synopsis, as based on guidelines in Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes. --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per Mr. Wind-up Bird. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge synopsis Fallen Angel ^talk 19:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)