Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by JPxG (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 18 October 2022 (Sweep through AfD logpages to remove duplicated empty lines from repair of orphaned AfDs via evil substituted transclusion hacking. (via WP:JWB)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< March 30 April 1 >

Purge server cache

March 31[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (~5 keep, ~13 delete). — FireFox • T [21:23, 6 April 2006]

Not a Number Technologies[edit]

Blender (software) is notable, the defunct company that made an early version is not The company name returns 396 google hits and seems to fail WP:CORP also. JoshuaZ 21:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blender isn't quite Adobe. Delete as NN. RGTraynor 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 00:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Er... um... the Pokemon test isn't a real test, and in any event, if we went by that test seriously then it would probably be more inclusive than even the most extreme inclusionists. The relevant test is WP:CORP and this doesn't meet it. JoshuaZ 01:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep . — FireFox • T [21:24, 6 April 2006]

Stargate: Battle for Mankind[edit]

Cruft mod--Zxcvbnm 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to get enough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to MediaWiki. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimail[edit]

Non-notable vanity. Wikipedia needs not articles about functions in the MediaWiki software. Delete. Off! 21:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Freedman[edit]

Incomplete nomination by Toughlove – Ezeu 17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (no consensus). — FireFox • T [21:26, 6 April 2006]

StreamSQL[edit]

Found this on prod and I think it deserves an afd. This is surely ad copy that needs to be rewritten NPOV. Mentions in popular media: MSNBC/Forbes.com Washington Post (though trivial) eWeek [3] [4] [5] [6] database journal [7] and more on google. No vote yet. kotepho 20:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killed the implementation section entirely. That addresses the above point. There are multiple commercial entities using StreamSQL-like approaches to solving this problem now, so I vote to keep it.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, possibly merge. Merging can be discussed on Talk:Lens mount. Stifle 23:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing lens mount[edit]

Not certain this is an actual term. Seems to be somewhat describing lens mount, which is already covered, but strangely that article was started by the same anonymous user, so I think (s)he intended to describe separate terms. English might not be their first language (IP is in NYC); I suspect that "lens focusing element(s)" might be something closer to what is meant, but can't be sure. Nonetheless, Googling for "focusing lens mount" doesn't seem to turn up much relevant to what is discussed in the article. Anyone with further knowledge, please proffer it! Girolamo Savonarola 20:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Barnaba[edit]

vanity article Rklawton 01:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabula DiBeaumarchais[edit]

Not notable - only a handful of Ghits outside wiki mirrors. Prod tag disputed, so bringing it here. Note I've prodded the site GayCork also.


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as combination of A7 biography, A6 attack page and general silliness. Capitalistroadster 03:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Shoenberg[edit]

vanity article - should be usified Rklawton 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kepco[edit]

Delete. Request for significance was removed without explanation. Non-notable company. discospinster 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Misadventure[edit]

Non-notable comic. 4 Google hits. Speedy tag pulled once and prod tag pulled twice because of added content. Still not notable, though. Delete. DMG413 01:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placebo security[edit]

Self-admitted neologism, supposedly invented by one Ivan Scalise. Gets 83 unique Google hits, many, if not most, not directly related to the alleged original meaning or alleged creator. Was prodded, but tag removed by creator. -- Calton | Talk 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, be calm :) I have removed the tag 'cause I have used the term "neologism", and I have seen that neologisms are not always eliminated. I'm present to an university lecture, time ago, and one of the speakers was the "random guy". Some days ago, I was to a lecture on the information security and, in a slide, his thought has been taken back... This way I wanted to share what doesn't seem a "common neologism" with you. I have not created "my personal page", I have shared only a form of thought that I like. Now, if you want, cast the stones! ;) --Torment 12:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kabal (rapper)[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable - consists only of an autobiography ripped from website Virogtheconq 01:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus--Adam (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Hayward[edit]

Vanity article from User:Jamesnice - some of them published by what seems to be his own company LTM (which he's been link spamming around various articles). Other by little-known publishers and with very low Amazon rankings. But I'd like the community's opinion on this one.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Jefferson[edit]

nn hoax bio; Real Salt Lake didn't exist until 2005, the New England Patriots are an NFL team...delete.  RasputinAXP  c 02:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of research i have done. Real Salt Lake didn't exist until 2005, the New England Patriots are an NFL team...delete. color="green">e]] non deletion this could be talking about a youth boys team or matb even a reserve or small team


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

The result was keep. W.marsh 21:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Malavalli[edit]

Kumar Malavalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable - no sources - part of the article looks like an ads. -- Chris! ct 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford High School Tribe of Pride Marching Band[edit]

I attend this school and I have to say - sorry if this offends anyone - this band is not particularly notable. They are one of the best in the county, but that's not saying very much to be honest. And for crying out loud, it's a high school marching band that hasn't won any notable awards - we had such an outcry over the high schools in the first place, so... yeah. (by the way if this goes through then obviously I'm notable too - I've won 1st place in national competitions before) – ugen64 02:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Slightly disagree. If a school band had won multiple national or international level band competitions(presuming they exist, I don't know enough about it) then it could reasonably merit its own article. JoshuaZ 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EElementary[edit]

Deprodded. This website doesn't register on Alexa. Enough said.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bradley[edit]

DELETE - County level candidate (who lost) for political office in South Bend, Indiana in 1999? Has a book out from a vanity publisher? Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder if the creator of this page and the subject are the same. Looking at one of the editor user names, I would say yes. People, if you want to make a self promoting page, at least choose a user name that isn't in anyway related to your own name. Nobunaga24 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeafSpot.net[edit]

This is an advertisement. Brein 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.--Adam (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA and September 11 (book)[edit]

The book has only been published in German, and not in English. I think it needs to be translated and published in English, with the English-language version widely circulated before it meets notability criteria for an article. Another critical issue is Verifiability and reliable sources to really know and verify what the book says. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see hope for salvaging this article and reconciling the issues with notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the time being. Book should at least be available in English before inclusion. Thatcher131 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Thatcher131 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Change vote to Keep. The article is vastly improved from the original, which was less than stub quality. It now addresses my primary concern, which was notability. Honestly, I would not have imagined that anyone could have taken such a weak starting point and develop the article to its current state. Good work by the editor. Ande B 05:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC) for English language article. Could be mentioned in article about the author Andreas von Bülow. Ande B 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Or Merge with related article(s), as I urged on the discussion page when the article was first posted. Ande B 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I realy wish I hadn't listed the "not English" language issue in my comment eariler. I see that it has caused some consternation and was not my primary motivation. The book is simply not notable. It has not had a visible social or political effect that warrants separate attention. It is a valid part of the Von Bülow article or any number of conpiracy articles. I read plenty of books and watch plenty of movies that are in languages other than English, and would have no problem with many of them getting their own articles. But this looks more tabloid, yellow press quality to me. (Sorry, I forgot to sign this before Ande B 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete MONGO 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge because, quite honestly, we only need one article on 9/11 conspiracy theories and this is just a stub for a book that makes the same claim. Why we even have to discuss a book that claims that the damage to the Pentagon was faked by the military is beyond me, but apparently any crazy idea can get in wikipedia as long as there is enough muddying of the waters to close an AfD with "no consensus". Thatcher131 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Last time I checked, Wikipedia wasn't Amazon.de. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge (see below) Relevant content will be referenced under the author; this does not warrant its own entry. Eusebeus 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. A extremely notable book by an author with an apparently extensive political background. Language or cultural disparity is never a good reason for to delete an article if it has attained sufficient notability, there is a far-reaching precedent that individual books by notable authors get their own articles, and it's ridiculous to think no-one would want to see info on this. Besides, I would consider this to be more than just a stub now. Grandmasterka 09:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frage: auf welchem Grund, behaupten Sie eine solche Bedeutung? Eusebeus 11:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Notability exclusively to the english speaking world isn't a criteria for inclusion in WP AFAIK. I don't know that there is a policy on excluding topics that are notable to foreign-language audiences. There are a lot of subjects that are important (even if this particular book is deemed not to be) that have not been translated into English. I don't know if there is a policy explicitly stating that untranslated books or films, etc. can be included (the absence of a policy that they cannot implies than can IMO) but Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English comes close I think. Esquizombi 15:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Edit: And also Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Title_translations which is "a naming conventions guideline for the naming of wikipedia articles about books" which states "books that haven't been published in English (yet) are preferably referred to by an English version of the title" which would also appear to indicate articles about books that haven't been translated into English are acceptable. Esquizombi 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. But Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English mentions a translation should be done independently and sourced, rather than translation by a Wikipedian, so that the article is verifiable. Given this is a highly controversial topic, I'm loathe to take what the article here says about "Contents" of the book, without proper references and preferably an english translation of the book that I can look at. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:BIAS is somewhat relevant here. And it is verifiable, because any of the numerous German speakers on this wikipedia can verify it (such as Señor Eusebeus, who responded to me.) Grandmasterka 17:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Actually, the RS does NOT say that Wikipedians cannot do translations. It indicates they may be "performed by a Wikipedia editor" and that it is OK for "editors [to] use their own English translation." Certainly it is generally better (as stated there) to use outside translations (though sometimes a wikipedian may be able to provide a better translation than the ones available elsewhere). This isn't so much an issue with this article, which does cite to english language sources and external links. Esquizombi 18:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I would like "the opportunity to verify for myself what the original material actually said". But, I can't do that here. Given the book is so popular in Germany, it's likely in due time that there will be an English translated version of the book. At that time, I wouldn't object to an article here. Until then, I have problems with being able to verify the article. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment It seems to me you're cherry-picking that guideline which states "In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said" (emphasis added). And again, that's not an issue anyway because there isn't any translation of the contents of the book in the article, rather it appears it was composed by reference to english language articles about the book which given that WP is a tertiary source is acceptable. If there were translated text from the book you could order the book and a German/English dictionary or plop passages into Babelfish and get an idea as to whether the translation may be accurate or not. But again, there's not, so that's not an issue. Would there be a good place on WP to discuss the broader issue of articles about untranslated subjects?Esquizombi 19:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not giving any credence to its notability when it's not on de.wikipedia.org [13]. The best it gets is a line in Andreas von Bülow [14] -- Samir (the scope) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Using the deWP to argue a topic is not notable is weak, IMO. There are plenty of English-language books, films etc. that meet WP's notability criteria and are not on the enWP yet, but that doesn't mean they're not notable. Esquizombi 16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Not weak, in my opinion. A claimed #3 best seller in English is probably on the English wikipedia. I haven't been swung over by claims of sales which are unreferenced. Provide a better reference of its claim to notability than german.about.com. Until then, I take the absence on the German wikipedia to be telling -- Samir (the scope) 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I repeat, I don't think the absence of an article on the deWP proves it is not notable, any more than the absence of an article about an English language book on this WP proves the book is not notable. It only proves nobody has added one yet. There's no article on Barbara Hodgson, for example, or any of her several critically acclaimed and award-winning books, one of which is being adapted into a film (I should work on that). Additionally, the dewiki only has "378.316 Artikel" versus the 1,054,498 articles on this one. Look at the article again; there are better references there than the about.com one you singled out. There are other references to it as a bestseller, for example The Boston Globe.[15] Esquizombi 01:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Put the references in the article. I wasn't aware of the Boston Globe reference, and have to use circumstantial evidence like absence in the German wikipedia, which I think still counts for something (i.e. an article on Barbara Hodgson would be more likely to appear in en.wikipedia than de.wikipedia) -- Samir (the scope) 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems to be important in the German-speaking world. en.wikipedia, while based and written in English, is not an encyclopaedia for exclusively English topics. Lord Bob 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above - our ignorance of other languages does not mean we should delete articles about material written in them. For great justice. 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grandmasterka et al., notable book by notable autho, notability is not exclusive to the Anglosphere. There are more than enough really crufty 9/11 POV stubs around, let's have at these. Sandstein 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn in .de (and yes I speak german....) Bridesmill 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (stricken, per Bridesmill's request below. -- noosphere 17:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment What does "nn in .de" mean? If you're referring to the fact that there is no article on the de.wp, that only means that nobody there has been motivated enough to add an article for it, not that it would not meet their notability criteria. If you're referring to Amazon.de, it appears to be ranked 3,029 there[16] which isn't too bad for a three year old book. Esquizombi 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - please delete my previous Delete - article very much improved, as it is right now it stands as a fine example of critical book review. Still not a particularly notable book here; are we going to do article of every book that has any level of notability anywhere in the world? Bridesmill 12:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability isn't exclusive to the so-called "Anglosphere;" I quite agree. Its inclusion into Wikipedia.de should take place forthwith, and I encourage those who approve of it so highly to take care of that. RGTraynor 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your seemingly snarky remark is unappreciated WP:NPA. I don't approve of the book, but I do approve of an article about it, because it appears to meet criteria for notability and does meet WP:V. The sources for the article are english language articles by Deutsche Welle's DW-World.de, Newsweek, and the twelve-year old online newspaper telegraph.co.uk which strike me as reliable and also speaking to the book's notability. Esquizombi 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't think that was a personal attack by any stretch, I should observe that, while I would be happy to add it myself, I don't speak a word of German. Lord Bob 22:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "those who approve of it so highly" is what I objected to. I'm quite willing to vote keep on topics I don't approve of (like this one) if I believe they merit inclusion. The article's content is verifiable with reliable sources and the book appears to be notable. Ich spreche nur ein bißchen Deutsch, so I'm not sure I'd be qualified to add the article to the German wiki, though I had created an account there and have managed to order German-language books and movies from Amazon.de. Esquizombi 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEAK WEAK WEAK Keep This article is about the BOOK not the CONTENT, if it is a popular book and a best seller in a major market as somsone stated then it should be included. Remember the references have to be in english or translated to english, but the book does not. We are not argueing the content of the book, but rather its notability. Mike (T C) 19:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if it's number three in Germany with sales of 100,000 (though I'd like to see evidence of that), then it's definitely notable. Not being translated into English is not a criterion for deletion. We have lots of articles about non-English television shows and movies. I mean, what about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, for Goo's sake? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, decent sources and appears notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ich verstehe nicht: it is not clear to me, nor have I seen addressed in this discussion, why this content is not better considered at the entry on Andreas von Bülow; it is hardly as if that article is so overwhelmingly long that it cannot accommodate more information, and since the book is the vehicle for the ideas of the man, surely it is a better place for it. Why keep this in a separate article? The fact that it is in German, is really a canard. If this is kept this time around, I recommend it be renominated with a suggested merge to the author to avoid an unecessary debate about language. Eusebeus 09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (Postcscript: WRT several points made above, this is very unlikely to receive an article on de.WP, since their standards for inclusion are generally much more stringent and, per precedent, any such article would almost certainly be flagged for deletion forthwith and the content moved back to Bulow's main German language entry. So inter-wiki referencing here wrt notability is not apposite. Eusebeus 09:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment In the case of people who wrote only one book, and especially if they are primarily known only for that book, I would agree with you. In this case, since he is the author of at least two books and is known (or at least had long been known) for being in the German government, I'd be less inclined to advocate merging. As it is, it's unfortunate so much of Bulow's own entry is about his 9/11 beliefs. I haven't tried to read the de.wiki's deletion policies, but they do have an article there on the apparently untranslated English language 9/11 conspiracy book de:Crossing the Rubicon, so I'm not sure Bulow's book would be deleted. Esquizombi 13:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep book seems notable per all above to me Jcuk 15:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify. --Striver 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sure looks notable to me. Barry Zuckerkorn 19:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the book has gotten attention somewhere in the world so we should be talking about it here. That's what we do. Is the nom suggesting that the whole world should speak English and if they don't we should ignore it? Frankly, I think that kind of thinking is dangerous for the spread of knowledge. Language was not a barrier to the exchange of ideas in the 18th century and I don't see why it should be in the 21st century. -- JJay 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable despite the language. feydey 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge'. The article is well organized, and the organization takes up as much room as the content. It's a stub, notable or not. I'm not even sure the book is original. If it ever gets translated, it can be deconsolidated from related articles back into its own.--Pro-Lick 00:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since when does something have to be in English to be notable? As for verifiability, there are plenty of German speaking Wikipedia editors who can do that. -- noosphere 22:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I am concerned, translation into other languages is indicative of the extent of a book's influence. The more translations, the greater the distribution, influence, or interest. Without wide distribution then I would look to social or political consequences of the book and I just don't see much in the way of consequences for this particular book, regardless of its origins. YMMV. Ande B 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the first two sentences of the above comment. Namely, that "translation into other languages is indicative of the extent of a book's influence" and "the more translations, the greater the distribution, influence, or interest." However, it does not follow that just because a book may not have been translated in to English, then the only criteria we can use to judge its notability is its "political consequences". It's not at all clear how one could judge the "political consequences" of a book in a NPOV way. It may be relatively clear in the case of some exceptions like Mao's Little Red Book, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, and the scriptures of the major religions; but in the vast majority of cases books just don't have any obviously visible political consequences. However, that doesn't mean they're non-notable. I think looking at the sales numbers of the book in question as a sign of its notability is perfectly acceptable, even when there's no English translation. By excluding popular books that haven't yet been translated in to English we're encouraging systemic bias and hampering legitimate research in to a given topic by English speaking individuals who may be interested in how that topic is percieved or interpreted in the rest of the non-English speaking world. Besides, the English language publishing industry is generally not interested in books in translation: only a miserably tiny fraction of foreign language books are ever translated in to English[17][18], likely for business reasons that may have little to do with their notability in the rest of the world. Why should Wikipedia defer to the English language publishing industry to the exclusion of the rest of the world, when we can rely on perfectly legitimate indicators of their notability elsewhere (such as their sales in other countries)? -- noosphere 01:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this article has come a long way since being nominated for AfD. There are three claims being made about: firstly it is NN. I disagree: it has sold 100,000 copies, which is very large for a "non-fiction" (allegedly!) book, especially in Germany. It was the hot topic of the 2003 Frankfurt Book Fair - and as a book, not just as the work of Herr "Cranky" van Bulow". It is extremely controversial as a book (not just as a selection of views) because of the quality of sourcing - this is an issue about the German publishing industry, not 9/11, therefore we need to consider this book as a book, not just a selection of (what are largely seen as dangerous/bizarre) views associated with one man. Secondly, it not verifiable. I disagree, there are plenty of English languages secondary sources on this book and I have tried to improve the referencing for the article so that it is now clear exactly where each statement in the article can be sourced from. (Haven't finished just yet, will probably take me another hour to incorporate another three English language sources). Thirdly, it is synonymous with Andreas von Bulow and should be merged. Again, I disagree, we need to treat this book as a book for the reasons I have given already plus the fact that Andreas von Bulow has had a long career and is important as a politician in his own right. If we had a balanced biography for him, perhaps the bottom quarter of it would be on his post-politicial retirement conspiracy theorising. However, that is unlikely to happen as in the English-speaking world he is best known for his controversial views on 9/11. Those views do not "define the man" and this article is about more than his views, it also considers the books as a publishing phenomenon, as part of a zeitgeist for similar publications, and as a controversy within German publishing. TheGrappler 16:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am certainly coming to this late in the day, but this seems to be one of those cases where the nomination for AFD resulting in a much better article. Multiple bases of notability are now laid out with references. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to FA. - Darwinek 11:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shohei Suzuki[edit]

This page is a super-short stub, and I don't think it has any potential (I've never heard of this guy). The Republican 01:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Move to Wiktionary This doesn't have much potential (though I could research it) so it would be better off becoming dictionary material or deleted. Just delete it. Funnybunny 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why Wiktionary? Wiktionary is for word definitions, not biography stubs --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay. I edited my vote. Funnybunny 04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; redirect is not needed, in case nobody has noticed yet. - Liberatore(T) 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC), create a redirect in place. - Liberatore(T) 16:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Store Brand[edit]

Non-notable; clearly doesn‘t satisfy WP:BAND. No Allmusic entry, no recordings listed on Amazon, zero Google hits for “Store Brand” + “Justin Noble” (the lead singer). Prod was contested. Delete. dbtfztalk 03:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Marudubshinki as an attack page. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan T. Landry[edit]

Non-notable biography of a self proclaimed "Renaissance Man". 14 unique Ghits for "Jordan T. Landry" [20]. A search for "Jordan Landry" reveals nothing related to the article. IMDB shows no Jordan T. Landry on "Fever Pitch" (but oddly shows a Jordan Leandre). That and he "he commands fake army battalions in repeated invasions of Mexico and Canada" -- Samir (the scope) 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, delete it, but you've got to admit it was pretty good.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl6822a (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Digestive Collectivism[edit]

Wikipedia is Not for things made up in school. The link provided has nothing to do with this phenomenon. It's unverifiable. Was prodded and de-prodded. Delete. Makemi 03:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Ku (film)[edit]

vanity entry about a nn film. Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shoebox Project[edit]

Recreated article on a Harry Potter fanfic, but content isn't similar enough to be a speedy candidate. De-prodded without comment by an anon. -- Vary | Talk 03:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Cameron (time travel)[edit]

The only sentence that even attempts to establish notability starts with the word "Allegedly" Deville (Talk) 03:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasis[edit]

As mentioned in the article and associated talk page, this is completely unfounded terminology which does not appear in any medical or online resource or publication in the scientific literature. Alsorises 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twodeadsluts Onegoodfuck[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 04:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I've only heard two of their samples so I cannot comment on their music much.. but WP:MUSIC is the issue not if they are any good. kotepho 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which part? Kotepho 03:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Media and tour, and that's without putting much effort in. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with the touring. If you look at their Myspace you can see that they are actually currently touring a large portion of the U.S. They can even be quoted to saying "The band is planning on bringing the live show to both coasts in 2006." Also, they have been mentioned in multiple reputable sources of press as stated above. The Metro 00:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How are the sources not reputable? They have been reviewed by quite a few places. And they most be notable if they are touring the whole country and all of their old albums are sold out. The Metro 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how they can fail WP:MUSIC seeing as they are currently touring the country. The Metro 1:15, 2 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 merge - Liberatore(T) 16:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UI chrome[edit]

Stub not worthy of a separate article. - Sikon 05:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Cafarelli[edit]

Delete - vanity, reads like a restaurant advertisement. Prod tag removed without explanation. Wickethewok 05:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rian1.2[edit]

Delete - No assertion of notability. Also, seems to be crystal ballism. Prod tag removed without explanation. Wickethewok 05:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore(T) 16:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonga-Hiti[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatu[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As far as I can tell, unverifiable. Bucketsofg 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whatu means 'stone' in Māori. To make it mean hail, you have to add the word for rain: ua-whatu (stony rain) or ua-ā-whatu (rain with stones). It makes no sense for the everyday word for stone to be used without these additions and expect anyone to understand it to refer to hail. Whatu is definitely a Māori word, and cannot appear in this form in any other Polynesian language so this cannot be a Polynesian god in the wider sense. Hail is not that common here in NZ, and I would think even rarer still in tropical Polynesia. Apparently hail does occur in Hawaii, but how could they have used a Māori word for it? Kahuroa 06:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 16:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    HUH? How can you "Keep as above" when all the entries above are for "Delete"? Looks like this user is adding Keeps to every AfD, as some form of WP:POINT. Fan1967 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'For great justice' means well but his reasoning is hard to follow. (see my talk page). I take it that he is supporting Grutness' intro above where he says 'keepers...deferring to editors...' and means to indicate that he supports what the 'editors' (ie, me) decide. I think... Kahuroa 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Wahieloa. - Liberatore(T) 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wahie Loa[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vitu[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore(T) 16:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uekera[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No entry in Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Notability unclear; unverified. Bucketsofg 05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I edited to remove the 'Polynesian mythology' category because this is not Polynesian - Kiribati is in Micronesia. An illustration of the reliability of some of these stubs. I now say 'weak keep' because it has references and I am not conversant with Micronesian mythology. Kahuroa 06:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC) edited --Kahuroa 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Later comment: Definite Keep - now well sourced by Crypticfirefly below. Kahuroa 06:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'As above' means as the original poster mentioned ("Some of them may be keepers . . . I'm deferring to editors . . . as to which is which") For great justice. 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I also make it clear in my nomination that most of them are not keepers. Voting keep for all of these irrespective of whether they deserve it is a bit strange, to say the least, and positively misleading in many cases. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tevake[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uranga-o-Te-Ra[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've added a reference to Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. Unless someone can make a good argument against notability, it should probably be kept. Bucketsofg 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given verification by Bucketsofg. My view is that verifiable gods or mythical figures listed in reliable sources are notable. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tho it must come from a rare version of the story of Māui and so I am not comfortable with it being given the blanket description 'in Māori mythology' as if it were the 'standard' version or something, which it aint. I would like to see a tribal origin traced for this, but in the meantime, fair enough. Kahuroa 06:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Later comment: I traced a further reference, Tregear 1891, possibly the ultimate source.Kahuroa 10:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tumuitearetoka[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tukoio[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tu-Mea[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Ngaru (this would be a merge normally, but there's nothing to merge) - Liberatore(T) 17:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tongatea[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa who know their Polynesian mythology as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  17:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dannel Gomiller[edit]

Not very many Google hits for a "cult hit around the world." Chick Bowen 05:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delet as nn-bio and contains personal information. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Anant Tayal[edit]

non notable bio of a student, {prod} removed by page author Montco 06:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  17:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of possbile references to music media in the Doom series[edit]

Original Research. One I know is legit. Others seem speculatory at best, without sources. Delete or possibly merge to Making of Doom Drat (Talk) 06:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.John Saw[edit]

Prodded as vanity bio (see WP:BIO). Prod was removed and improperly restored. Moving here as a courtesy to the reprodder. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve glove[edit]

Very minor piece of technoloy used by a single group of 1,000 men (the Imperial Fists Space Marine chapter) in the fictional Warhammer 40,000 universe. Information comes from a single novel, and the device does not receive a mention in any other rules, background, or fiction work produced by Games Workshop or its subsidiariy companies. Use is nowhere near widespread enough in the fictional universe to justify (in my mind) a merge to the Weapons and Equipment of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), an is not important enough to the organisation and doctrine of the Imperial Fists chapter to include there.

I have nominated this article once before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerve glove), back in November 05, which resulted in a no consensus keep. -- Saberwyn 06:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upalindrome[edit]

Delete - a google search for this turns up nothing. NN neologism. Wickethewok 06:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaso Vukotic's Theory[edit]

Not notable. romanm (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy (?) delete CSD A5

Phaneromania[edit]

Dictionary definition transwiki'd in June 05; unchanged since. Tzaquiel 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranobu[edit]

Obvious nonsense - Tzaquiel 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was split and merge - Liberatore(T) 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Rulings[edit]

This article seems to have an unclear scope or and no particular direction for expansion. It is unclear what an "Islamic Ruling" is – surely the article cannot discuss every decision made by an Islamic court. I suggest that this article be removed, and that the interested contributors focus on more specific, better-defined sub-topics. Twinxor t 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how do I delete the article now. I dont think the rest of the stuff can be merged with anything. I would like to delete the article now. How do I do it? MuslimsofUmreka 20:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAOLI The Single[edit]

Delete - article about an obscure single by an obscure musician, non-notable. Wickethewok 06:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as article with little or no context.

Falsifing information[edit]

Unexpandable misspelled dicdef. Prod was removed. dcandeto 06:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NDAPL[edit]

Unexpandable dicdef. Prod was removed. dcandeto 06:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CapROS[edit]

NN software. Very few google hits that actually correspond to the software, as of the time of this nomination their website returns nothing, its not even significant enough to earn an Alexa rating, and is still under development. Delete --Hetar 07:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in the process of adding a 'Capability systems' category and updating various entries related to capability systems. I created this page as a placeholder for Charlie Landau to edit, and I have emailed Charlie to advise him that he needs to populate it. It is not clear why Hetter believes that the website [21] returns nothing. It certainly responds for me. I did forget to insert the http:// on the initial edit (since fixed). CapROS is an active sourceforge project, and it is currently funded by DARPA.

Hettar may be right that an entry on CapROS is premature. I suggest that Landau should be given a decent interval of time to put more substantial content here before the page is deleted. I'ld also note that when an author is staring a delete notice in the face it tends to be self-fulfilling. Why should they invest effort in improving a Wikipedia entry if the entry is under threat of deletion? If they don't, how can Wikipedia determine whether sufficient content might exist to justify retention?

By all means let us revisit this in a week or so, by which time there will probably be something to react to. In the interim, have the common decency to let Landau edit without a threat notice in his face. shap 07:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article's nomination is not based on its content, but rather on its subject, which will still not meet WP:SPAM, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:Not a crystal ball and WP:VANITY anytime in the near future. --Hetar 08:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us take these in turn.

  • WP:SPAM: It would be factually inaccurate to fail to mention that the principal force behind CapROS is a company. The article does not indulge in advocacy or sales. The article does not indulge in any other form of SPAM listed at WP:SPAM.
  • The argument for WP:SOFTWARE is stronger, primarily because CapROS isn't shipping yet. However, the simple fact that this system is DARPA-funded in the current funding environment is fairly remarkable, and might be construed as a metric of significance for the KeyKOS/EROS/CapROS path of work. To my knowledge, there are only two such operating systems today (the other, FYI, is Coyotos). To the extent that a brief CapROS entry serves as the endpoint of the EROS work, a brief entry is necessary for editorial completeness. For some other topics, this might be a reason to merge the entry into the EROS entry (which might be appropriate at this point). The editorial problem with this is that it does not sufficiently respect due credit. As the EROS principal I would be very uncomfortable with an editorial presentation that would appear to present Landau's work as mine.
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball doesn't apply here. CapROS unquestionably exists. However, this may be a reason not to have a stub entry until CapROS actually releases.
  • I may not be independent enough to evaluate the WP:VANITY challenge. My rationale for adding the entry was (a) The EROS work was considered well-motivated by a broad number of people, (b) The current EROS development path is proceeding with CapROS, so if the work is worth mentioning CapROS needs to be dealt with for editorial completeness. (c) The desire to avoid proliferation of articles is overridden in this case by the importance of not misrepresenting credit.

However, I note that Hettar does not respond to my primary original point: the article does not yet have content, and until it has had a reasonable chance for content to be added it is impossible for Hettar to form any useful opinion about it, and certainly not about the spam or vanity points. It is clearly not the expectation of Wikipedia that articles arrive full-formed from the mouth of Zeus. Hettar's nomination for deletion is premature.

I also note that Hetar obviously didn't actually look at the CapROS website. Perhaps he typed ".com" rather than ".org". He has not yet troubled to acknowledge his shoddy archival research in this regard.

The question of Alexa ratings is utterly irrelevant. I know Brewster, and I wish him and Alexa the best, but Alexa's criteria are not those of Wikipedia. Same issue for Google, whose primary consideration is cross-linkage, not merit.

Would Hetar find it appropriate if his current high school faculty made a practice of deleting his term papers summarily at the end of their first sentence on the grounds that they were incomplete?

One more time: the article needs a decent, but not excessive, opportunity to be written before it is evaluated for deletion, and this will not happen if the deletion threat is sitting in the article. In the interim, have the common decency to let Landau edit without a threat notice in his face. 68.33.84.43 12:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding further to Hetar's points:
  • WP:SPAM: There cannot be a sales motivation, because the software is available free.
  • WP:SOFTWARE: Because CapROS is the continuation of EROS, all the peer-reviewed publications regarding EROS apply also to CapROS.
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: The software exists, is published/released (on SourceForge.net), and runs now. I have made a minor edit to the article to correct this point. Like all active software, it is under development to improve it.
  • Borderline weak keep per the arguments of CLandau, if the sources about DARPA funding are added to the article. The reference to WP:VANITY, I think, remains pertinent nonetheless: even if the subject is notable, it is just considered very bad form to write about one's own projects. You would have done better to focus your attention on other things, confident in the strength of Wikipedia's collective mind to eventually identify it as notable and write an article about it. Sandstein 18:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DARPA funding does not make an item "notable" -- on those grounds, the box of pens some general's secretary bought last week on the government's dime is. RGTraynor 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Clandau and the anon IP adress made some good points, though I still don't think its notable enough to merit its own article. Perhaps a merge and redirect to EROS? --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had much to do with Keykos which is an ancestor of Capros. I argue here that Capros, and therefore the article, is important. I hope that such an argument is not out of line. There are several very active e-mail lists on capability based security. The subject is controversial. There is currently little activity in the area of an OS kernel based on these ideas. This seems unfortunate for without secure platforms there is little hope of a secure infrastructure. I think that Capros is probably the system closest to providing such a secure platform, which I supose is the reason for DARPA support. NormHardy 04:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle luxury[edit]

Delete - advertisement. Wickethewok 07:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisment, spam Gu 08:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC. Henning Makholm 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Clarification or Undelete 12:03, 2 April 2006 - I only created the article as I saw under the term 'luxury_real_estate' the profile of a company I am aware of and felt this was on par with that article. I felt if that article was accepted, this one could be. Could someone at least clarify the difference between the two? I accept and understand and don't want to add untasteful spam and it was not my intent, but why is one company allowed and another not? 'Luxury Real Estate' was clearly written and corrected by the creator of the business "Luxury Real Estate" with an added definition of "luxury real estate" after placing their company information. Also, is there a way to restate anything in the article to make it valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johng7777 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. - After reviewing the spamming policy, I agree this article should be deleted. I do feel that the article 'luxury real estate' should be reviewed carefully as well, as that is where the idea for this article was conceived. I am aware that IBM or Hewlett Packard etc. are large enough for notoriety, but I don't believe 'luxury real estate' would be in that classification as they are not setting any trends per se in the luxury real estate market, nor are they considered a standard by any means. Just an opinion from a luxury realtor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johng7777 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

662 Recordings[edit]

No sources are provided for this supposed record label. Google returns 3 hits for the name "662 Recordings", none of which are relevant. [22] Subject is non-verifiable and does not currently meet WP:MUSIC guidelines for inclusion. This page should be deleted until verifiable evidence can be provided that this label actually exists. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, defaults to keep Proto||type 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paperdoll Heaven[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was advert. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. 30k google hits, though 0 Google Groups hits. Has traffic data on Alexa [23]. The article could be cleaned up, but it looks like it's probably marginally notable at least. --Interiot 15:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep per 2,148 alexa rank and 30,500 google. Comfortably meets WP:WEB. It's got newspaper reports about it, etc etc. Fan sites. Very notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, combing through the google results, a large percentage of them look like SEO spam, I was having a hard time finding meaningful links to the site. But the Alexa rank does let it clear WP:WEB. --Interiot 16:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry? I didn't check through the google too much, just enough to note that all the google hits were actually about this. It meets Alexa pretty easily though. 2,000 while 10,000 is the criteria. So we shouldn't need to worry about the google part. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per UncleG, the best use of Google results is to carefully scan through them, and find "other people have found the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of writing and publishing stuff of their own about it". Many of the Paperdoll Heaven hits are either simply links to the site that look like they could have been placed there as part of an SEO compaign (eg. many one-liners from blogspot [24]), or are mentions by blogs (many of them non-notable). I suppose that it's not a subject that newspapers would write about often, but maybe that means its inclusion in an encyclopedia should be borderline, not Strong. Nonetheless, there are a few semi-notable independent links to the site. [25] [26] --Interiot 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I call Bullsh*t. No way do I believe that Alexa rank. It's been obviously manipulated to boost ad revenues, which is why those google links are so suspicious. Probably part of the same campaign. Probably used Alexa Booster: [[27]] (This, btw, is why Alexa rankings should be treated with care. Do you really believe that this ridiculous site could reach that kind of rank??????) Eusebeus 15:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm currently working for the company behind the site. We have not engaged in any SEO or artificial Alexa-rank boosting. Believe it or not, there is a big demand for this kind of content. We're past a million subscribers now and are, at times, pushing out 200 Mbit/s of data. Index Ventures has invested $4 million in the company. I will abstain from voting on this request for deletion since I'm biased. If the article is kept, however, it's quite obvious that it needs some serious rewriting. It should also be renamed to Stardoll. I've been intending to do this, but haven't had the time. We're in chrunch mode now. :) Ehn 09:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to get enough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Hetar 08:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kloos[edit]

Only two music related links on google, apparently not well known Ethii 08:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axion Quake[edit]

Non notable free game. A google search for Axion Quake, filtering out Wikipedia mirrors only gets 133 hits. Article was created only four days after release. Official website no longer exists, a mere 2 and half months after release.-Drat (Talk) 08:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ascensionism[edit]

It is a spiritual movement, but it only gets 187 unique Google results, many, perhaps most, of which are about an album. Many of the non-album results are not about the movement, either. The article makes no claims as to the number of followers, but I would expect a large spiritual movement based upon technology to have a significant online presence. It is not a notable spiritual movement, yet. -- Kjkolb 08:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Horak[edit]

Hoax, unverifiable, and been here since September 2005! See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Horak, which had been created by the same IP. Creator also added wrong and/or unverifiable info in other articles. Lupo 08:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cant comment on whether or not this entry can belong but I can say I saw Steve Horak at a comedy club in Brooklyn and he was great!

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essembly[edit]

Nn spamvertisement. It's still in beta, so there is no way it can even come close to WP:WEB. Delete --Hetar 08:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? how is that possible...this is a social networking site just like MySpace and Facebook which are both written about extensively on Wikipedia. How can you exclude one like essembly that actually promotes something positive..it promotes thought and discourse and ideas! —This unsigned comment was added by Ndentzel (talk • contribs) .

That is so horrible of you people, of all people on the internet I would have thought that Wikipedia would be open to allowing the free share of information..cleary you want to limit the flow of information by not allowing a short piece of information on Essembly. If you all think that it is an advertisement then why dont you check out the site, and then modify the article to fit how you like it. And, if it is indeed an advertisement, then so is EVERY article on this site that gives a thorough explanation of a product, service, site, or good.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Schneid[edit]

Unverifiable, very likely a hoax. Same creator as Steve Horak (see above). Lupo 08:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The page Neil Baldwin was speedily deleted by Gflores with the delete summary (csd A7). This AFD is closed. —Encephalon 22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Baldwin[edit]

Not a notable guy. Everyone in Keele Leisure Centre knows Neil, but this has been created solely as a piss take. Funny, but this isn't a comedy site. Not BJAODN worthy. GWO 08:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous political slanders[edit]

Wikipedia shouldn't repeat slanders, and the examples given are weak. Even the "successful" example "Santorum" gets only 600 or so Google hits without Savage's name attached (search). Phr 09:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (Also, constitutes original research per WP:NOR). Phr 14:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to document social phenomena, and eponymous political slanders is certainly a real (and ongoing) social phenomenon. And documenting a slander is not the same thing as propagating it; I've certainly attempted, in writing this page, to avoid suggesting that I agree with the slanders in question. -- Meowse

Addendum: I have reviewed What Wikipedia Is Not and the Deletion policy, and I see no elements of either which, singly or in combination, justify deleting this page. Please cite specific elements from authoritative sources which justify deleting this page. Neither of your stated reasons ("Wikipedia shouldn't repeat slanders" and "the examples given are weak") occurs in either source, and thus neither can be used to justify deletion. Thanks, Meowse 11:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read WP:V for what constitutes usable citations. Few if any of your cites rise to the level required. Also, your cites are merely to examples of this phenomenon, not to published writing about the phenomenon itself ("eponymous political slanders" gets zero google hits right now). If the phenomenon is one that you identified yourself, that's original research inappropriate for Wikipedia, see WP:NOR. I've updated the beginning of the AfD to mention this. Remember that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a primary source. It's supposed to report only on what's already been documented by others. I realize your contribution is well-intended but Wikipedia is not the right place for this particular one. Phr 14:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does a Google search for "eponymous scientific terms" yield any significant hits outside of Wikipedia, yet there is a page for that. Categorizing instances of a phenomenon is not original research. Meowse 18:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any page called eponymous scientific terms, and even if there is one, there's no question that those terms (Newton, Pascal, Ampere, etc) are real terms; they have tons of published cites that go back for centuries, and making a list of them is no big deal. The only disparaging eponymous political term that I can think of with that documentable level of usage is Quisling, and I don't think that was coined in order to slander him. The examples you gave as "successful" range from barely marginal (santorum) to completely invalid (someone coining a term on a blog and someone else sticking it into Wiktionary doesn't make it a real word). And the "unsuccessful" efforts are non-notable terms by definition. Did you look at WP:NEO, the part about protologisms? Phr 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If you have suggestions for how the page can be made more opinion-neutral, please make them. I did my best to simply record a phenomenon without weighing in on either side of it. In particular, if you know of any eponymous political slanders of left-wing politicians, I would very much like to add them to the entry. (Note: "Bushitler", while both a neologism and a play on words, is clearly not an eponymous political slander as defined on this page: (1) it's not eponymous, being a portmanteau of two different names, and (2) it doesn't then attempt to redefine "bushitler" to reference an unpleasant concept) Meowse 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for collaboration: I believe that there's a significant social phenomenon occurring here, starting with Dan Savage's coinage of the neologism "santorum", and continuing into the present. I think that it's appropriate for Wikipedia to contain articles on emerging social phenomena. How would you like this information to be presented in Wikipedia, and what names/descriptions would you like it to be present under? Thanks! Meowse 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your sentence "I believe there's a significant social phenomenon occuring here", without documentation for the supposedly occurring phenomenon, is a sign that you're engaged in original research. Wikipedia is not trying to stay ahead of the curve. The phenomenon (if it exists) needs to be documented with citations to published sources per WP:V and Wikipedia can report on it after it's established as a real phenomenon, not before. Really, please spend 15 seconds asking yourself privately why you want this entry in Wikipedia (that is, why you really want it, not how you can best advocate it here). Then read WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer and see if item 1 applies. Phr 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should stay. I think entry is a fair description of what a "Eponymous political slander" is. In fact, I was researching just such a word, which I won't repeat here because it is a current event, and I found this entry very helpful. (This is the first time I have ever made a comment in Wikipedia ... so I hope this comment followed proper protocol.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.95.212 (talk • contribs)
    • Welcome to Wikipedia, and there's no problem commenting, except please sign your comments by appending four tilde's (~~~~). Also, see Template:AfdAnons which mentions that in deletion discussions, views of new contributors usually get less weight than already-active contributors. Phr 04:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page has perhaps a single semi-valid entry and some flame baiting doo-doo by a vandal. There are plenty of politically derived eponyms but they are not necessarily slanders, even if they started as insults. Perhaps the weak, single "Santorum" entry could be used in another article related to political eponyms, but I'm not aware of such an article existing at this time. Ande B 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a stretch to call it a list; there's only really one item worth mentioning. On top of that, the title is inaccurate, because the intent of introducing the neologism is to associate the eponymous politician with the connotations of the term's definition, not to assert that they are directly associated with it. --Sneftel 19:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, see WP:RM or WP:RFC for the issue at hand. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just add that the nominator tried precisely that before trying AfD as a way to generate interest. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Stephen II[edit]

I want to rename the page Pope Stephen III into Pope Stephen II, but I need room for it. The dab is already on the article Pope Stephen III, so there is absolutely no need for a separate dab page. You can find a long discussion about this in Talk:Pope Stephen. Maybe this place is not the good one to discuss the issue of numbering popes Stephen, but I've found no other place to launch this debate. Švitrigaila 09:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For background on this, see the bottom of my talk page; after he tried at various other places to get input on this (up to now, only he and one other user had been interested in this discussion, and they didn't agree), e.g. at the village pump and RfC, we came up with this way of getting more input on it. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 09:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... you know, it wouldn't really bother me. :o) Švitrigaila 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that you call the Vatican (or better yet, pray) for advice, compromise on Pope Stephen 2.5 or solve this the traditional Wikipedia way by edit-warring until all of you get blocked, and the article is then overwritten as a POV fork of a no-name Norvegian death metal band called Pøpe Stefän 111. But I'm not going to peruse in depth three pages of convoluted historical debates about popes for the purpose of helping you along that path, so speedy keep and get off my AfD, please. (Seriously now, why don't you try to solicit the advice of other knowledgeable editors, e.g. active contributors to Papacy-related articles?) Sandstein 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I go on travel on Vatican City next week to make my investigations in the secret archives. I hadn't thought yet thout about Pope Stephen 2.5, but I thought about Pope Stephen π. And seriously I've tried to post this request in some strategical places on WP, with no effect. I'm too shy to ask any user personally. I dared to ask Nightstallion because he likes spetial caracters in titles, but it has no connection at all... Švitrigaila 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add something: the issue is not a historical one. I think everybody agree about the facts themselves, so there is no need to find a pope specialist (a papologist ?) The issue is about the better way to name articles on Wikipedia. Everybody can have his word on it. Švitrigaila 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  17:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8th Georgetown (South) Sea Scout Group[edit]

non-notable local Scout group; vanity jergen 09:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Local articles== Generally, an entity smaller than a Council should not have its own article. Districts and troops, for example, should only have their own article if its done something very unique. Council articles should be structured by state/province, etc. (see RulesStandards talk page)

 Having local unit articles is vain and would create too many articles to organize is an effective manner. With the copyvio removal here, there is nothing useful to keep; but if there is something useful, it should go into the Malaysian Scouting article. Rlevse 18:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neuralia[edit]

Notability Yaranaika 09:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  17:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brokeback[edit]

Neologism based on Brokeback Mountain. Non-notable, unstable, uncommon etc. etc. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people and characters with premature gray or graying hair[edit]

inane, unmaintainable, listcruft, this is what, 30% of the entirety of all biographical articles about a male subject and some of the females too? SchmuckyTheCat 10:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as A8 by User:Alabamaboy. Kotepho 01:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exanimus[edit]

Crystal ball pre-production MMO. First AfD notice was removed by anon - I've reverted it.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:Doc_glasgow. Pepsidrinka 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophilia[edit]

Page was recreated as a POV fork of Islamophobia by Germen[29]. Was deleted by consensus before, and no valid reason to recreate. Irishpunktom\talk 10:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous vote, which resulted in delete, can be found Here.
which all qualify as valid reasions for keep and recreate. The neologism is disputed, as is islamophobia which is part of Wikipedia.
User fails to indicate any POV elements in this article, which makes his claims that the article is a POV fork dubious and unproven.
User "strongly supports" keeping of the POV article islamophobia, which is inconsequent[30] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not a dictionary entry, as manifest by the discussion and the links. As all emerging articles (stubs) it is still concise. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was speedy deleted G4 by User:doc glasgow, at 22:53, 31 March 2006. Article was recreated by User:Germen at 23:12, 31 March 2006. I have re-added the AfDx template linking to this discussion, and hope: (1) The discussion is held, to determine if this article belongs on Wikipedia per the various rules, policies, and guidelines, and (2) that all users involved abide by the result of this AfD. -- Saberwyn 12:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the article was speedy deleted again by User:doc glasgow (G4) and protected. Now what the fuck do we do? -- Saberwyn 22:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That sort of action really seems counterproductive to me. Is it too much to ask for an expanation? User:Dr. Glasgow clearly knew this AfD was in progress. It would be nice if he at least had the courtesy to explain why he closed it down. -- JJay 23:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Vote tally:

  • Delete: 13
  • Keep: 7
  • Less than 2/3 majority for deleting -> KEEP.
  • Note that the voting process was aborted in a ridiculously short time.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Hall, University of Cambridge- Students opinion[edit]

Article {{prod}}ed twice as violation of WP:NPOV. Tag removed by authors with no attempt to improve article. Authors state that the article is trying to encourage applications to the college, which is hardly an encyclopædic endeavour.  (aeropagitica)  10:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus/Keep. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soggy biscuit[edit]

This was previously nominated for deletion last July, but survived with no consensus. No reliable references or sources have been provided since last year. I believe this is not, at present, a tenable topic for a verifiable encyclopedia article: anything we do write will either be original research, remain unverified or will reference only unreliable sources. To quote the Verifiability policy, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources...The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

  • Delete. — Matt Crypto 11:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When you see the phrases "A game supposedly played" and "However, there is no documented evidence that this game is actually played by anyone", and not a single reference, the WP:V alarm bells start ringing. Not verified, not verifiable, original research, get thee gone! Proto||type 14:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Strong Keep, per refs below. Name and concept commonly known in the UK, at least. A widely-known urban legend- surprised better sources can't be found. Needs rewriting, but I feel now know can probably definitely (see below) be verified. I get the impression that many of the contributors to this and the previous AfD may have doubted the game's veracity- whether it's ever actually played or not I cannot say, but the concept and name at least are genuine. Badgerpatrol 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - 'can probably be verified' - I tried, and I found nothing reliable. If somebody else can, then I will reconsider my vote. Proto||type 14:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Referenced in UK national newspaper [32]. This is such a well-known concept that I suspect other printed sources (e.g. compendiums of modern folklore, commentary on public schools etc) would also be available [in addition to those already offered); however, I do realise that strongly suspecting the existence of other references is not the same as having them to hand- hence weakness of keep. Badgerpatrol 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the question isn't so much as to whether the concept exists — whether as an urban legend or not: it's clear that plenty of people mention it; e.g. in the newspaper editorial you mention. The issue would appear to be whether enough information about it has been published by reputable sources to be able to write an encyclopedia article about it. My suspicion is that there is not, but it's difficult to prove a negative. — Matt Crypto 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and I also note that the Blackadder quote, while it might refer to this practice, does not provide enough information to know that it does. Esquizombi 14:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone in England would already know that it does - the practice itself does not need to be verified, it is a verifiable cultural reference.
  • Weak keep per Badgerpatrol or redirect and smerge (not sure to where) or transwiki to Wiktionary. I'm not sure how much of an Encyclopedia entry this could ever be. I'm curious as to where Cassell's Dictionary got its info, but I suppose it is an acceptable source. I think the unsourced stuff in the article (e.g. the players do not necessarily self-identify as homosexual) has got to go. I found another source of debatable reliability: ""Other popular variations of such games include ejaculating onto food (favorites are soggy biscuits, white bread, chocolate pudding, etc.). The last person to come has to eat it." Garbage, Greta (1999). That's Disgusting : An Adult Guide to What's Gross, Tasteless, Rude, Crude, and Lewd, page 71 ISBN 1580080944 The game also appears in Goats: A Novel by Mark Jude Poirier, page 106 and in the story "Soggy Biscuit" by Barry Lowe in Flesh and the Word: An Anthology of Erotic Writing by John Preston. It's also described in Devenish, Colin (2000). Limp Bizkit, page 26 ISBN 031226349X. Most of the other references to SBs in books (Amazon search) seem to be to biscuits that have become soggy from more conventional liquids, though some of them allow for probably inadvertant humor by double entendre. Esquizombi 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. WP:V. PJM 14:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least as a cultural reference. Is noted in Stephen Frys The Liar. For great justice. 16:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - res ipsa loquitur, as they say. WP:NOT a repository of urban myths, let alone schoolboy myths. Sandstein 18:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Changed to weak keep after WP:V provided below (but put the sources in the friggin' article!). Still not really convinced of notability, but well, if we do have all of e.g. Category:Paraphilia... Sandstein 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article needs a substantial rewrite (to improve style as well as to insert suitable references), which I am happy to do provided it persists past the AfD. Badgerpatrol 22:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comment I think there is some misunderstanding here. Some voters appear to be objecting on the grounds that the entry is a neologism or 'pure' original research (ie that the original contributor, or a small group containing the contributor and a few friends, made up this term on the spot). Neither is true. 'Soggy biscuit' IS not a neologism. It is a widely-known and recognised name and concept, at least in the UK (as can be confirmed by even a cursory Google search, which returns multiple (thousands) independent hits). One may not have heard of a term, but that does not make it untrue. The question is not 'is this a real thing' but rather 'it IS a real concept, but should it be included in the encyclopaedia'? (ie, can it be verified?). The content is definitely true, but 'actual' truth is not 'objective' truth (ie verifiability). I have provided one ref above, and FGJ has suggested another; there is also the Blackadder sketch. There are numerous pages regarding individual urban legends and modern folklore on Wikipedia. The material should probably be kept in its current form; I feel there is too much for wiktionary, but a move would perhaps be one option as a compromise. As far as I can see, this term now fully satisifes WP:V and WP:OR. Badgerpatrol 19:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what do these references let us say, exactly? I don't think they even suffice as a reliable source for a definition. — Matt Crypto 22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V... references provided are not sufficient. This concept exists; in the days of yore where I came up it was called "Circle Jerk" and the supposed target was a Saltine cracker. The problem is sourcing. We have one referenced article that mentions "soggy biscuit" with the 'wink-wink-nod-nod' that the reader already knows what it is. There is a a mention in a book, and a passing mention on Black Adder. Unless someone can produce a source that verifiably describes the act of soggy biscuit in reference to that name, and the other purported terms used for it, it simply does not meet WP:V's big old bold text: Verifiability, not truth.--Isotope23 20:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, someone understands what sourcing the article means! Badgerpatrol gets a cookie for making a decent first step towards WP:V sourcing. I'm going to withdraw my opinion for now pending Badgerpatrol's rewrite and sourcing of the article. I'd like to see further sources, or the article strongly based and attributed to the Cassell reference if that is the only WP:V source being provided.--Isotope23 13:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the Stephen Fry novel The Liar, and the article should reflect its existance as a rumour and item in fiction, not claim it is a fact. For great justice. 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned or described?--Isotope23 01:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Described, in quite some detail. For great justice. 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a novel, yes? We can't really use fiction as a reliable source. — Matt Crypto 06:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if that is the source being used to verify this then the article should read "Soggy Biscuit is an act described in the Stephen Fry novel...etc". At that point I would say this should be merged to The Liar.--Isotope23 03:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - re-write the article to show that it is a cultural reference. For great justice. 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for those of you who are not from the UK, it is not a neologism. It is a cultural reference that appears in numerous places. There are articles for fictional places, people and things, the reason people seem to insist on deleting this is that most americans have never heard of it. That's disapointingly narrow minded. For great justice. 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that it is not sourced per WP:V.--Isotope23 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is a WP:V and WP:RS [33], but not enough there-there for an article. FloNight talk 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to nitpick, but that isn't a WP:V source because it doesn't describe what "soggy biscuit" is. The exact reference in that article is: "It could have been more embarrassing only if they'd been caught playing soggy biscuit." Anyone reading that would have to have a pre-existing idea of what "soggy biscuit" refers to. All you can infer from this is that getting caught playing "soggy biscuit" is embarrassing, or would be to a world leader. It could be a collequial reference to Candyland based on the complete lack of context in this article. A WP:V reference needs to describe the game.--Isotope23 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I want articles like this on wikipedia. There may be difficulties in getting citations and references about a sex/dirty game but that doesn't mean the information is irrelevant, and this game is definitely not made up and is sort of an urban legend. If I want to find out what a 'soggy biscuit', is or what 'hot karl' is or whatever filthy things I hear on TV are I want to be able to go on wikipedia and find out. I can confirm as a UK citizen that this game does exist, at least by word-of-mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.143.187 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong keep - If "felching" stays in, so should "the soggy biscuit". This is the sort of pop culture referance I utilize the wikipedia for. Settling arguments and such. If I wanted a typically boring encylical, I'd have broken out the cash for a world book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.64.199 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: fails WP:NOT. --Hetar 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've even heard this urban legend in Norway. 129.241.127.122 14:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Verification OK, in a nostalgic reminder of my mis-spent youth, I spent part of today in the library looking up naughty words in the dictionary. The first (and I must confess, only- breaktime is special time!) dictionary I went to ('The Cassell Dictionary of Slang, Jonathon Green, 1998, page 1110) had this to say re 'Soggy Biscuit':
Soggy Biscuit, n. 1960's, origin. Aus.: 'A masturbation game, popular among schoolboys, whereby the participants masturbate and then ejeculate upon a biscuit; the last to reach orgasm must eat the semen-covered bicuit'
That is surely as exact a definition as surely wikipedia needs? As objective evidence, we now have: the Guardian article, which tells us that a) soggy biscuit is an embarassing activity; b) that it is sufficiently notable as to be suitable for inclusion in a major national newspaper without further explanation, the nod and wink conceit being that the reader will already know what it is and will not require further explanation. We have the BlackAdder reference. We also have FGJ's assertion that the game is mentioned in detail in The Liar. Finally, we have the precise definition in a reference work intended for a mass audience. This, as multiple correspondants above have asserted (not just the slightly unreliable anon. IPs), is a widely notable urban legend. I have no doubt, given the widespread notability of this game in British and Anglophone culture, that many other references are available and can be added to the article in the future. I did not have to look hard in order to find the definition above. I really do feel that we now have enough corroboratory evidence to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. There is no reason why this article should be held to higher standards of notability and verifiability (which surely have now been satisfied?) than any other on Wikipedia. It is a real concept, not a neologism, sufficiently notable for most readers of a national newspaper to be assumed to have heard of it, and can be verified with an exact definition. It is encyclopaedic. Badgerpatrol 19:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at worst merge - is there a page Stupid games people play, with apologies to Eric Berne, who would classify this one a type 3 game I think. It may be genuine - it has been mentioned in a newspaper, although the journalist didn't say what it was, so assuming that he meant the same thing as someone else is ... and assumption ... but it lacks the minimal element of importance sometimes called notability that distinguishes all-inclusiveness from encyclopaedic. Midgley 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I think I've outlined the case for notability above. 'Importance' is a subjective term. Notability... -isn't. Badgerpatrol 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some more citations, from NewsBank:

"YOU might think nothing would shock rockers Limp Bizkit but you'd be wrong. The American stars are horrified to discover that their name describes a masturbation game known across the world". The Northern Echo: SLEAZE AND BIZKIT Northern Echo, The (Middlesborough, England) April 4, 2002

"It's a terrible thing to do but it is a TV tradition - as is the biscuit game at public schools". Independent on Sunday: First Up: Close to the edit Independent on Sunday, The (London, England) December 16, 2001

"Reading is for idle fops between rounds of the biscuit game" In your face - Comment, Alan Coren Times, The (London, England) December 3, 1999

All such sources are admittedly hearsay, but they are reliable sources to the existence of the meme. Tearlach 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Tearlach 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response- No problem! I have now completely rewritten the article and included verification. It is never going to be War and Peace, but with a modicum of effort it could expand from the sizeable stub that it now is to a minor article. Note that I have included some no-wiki comments in the body of the text that are only visible when editing or in the history (see this diff). It would be great to get hold of some of the newspaper mentions referred to above- if any subscribers can get hold of them and include them as refs that would be ideal. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 14:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Badgerpatrol. New Progressive 14:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but don't stop looking for sources - certainly a term I've known for decades, and definitely improving after Badgerpatrol's work on providing some credible sources. Surely more can be found for such a long-time urban legend. - dharmabum 21:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Glacial Lake Outburst Flood Proto||type 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier run[edit]

Information in this article was substantially merged into Glacial Lake Outburst Flood and is no longer needed. If the concensus is to delete, closer should also delete talk page to prevent it being orphaned.--MONGO 11:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've just merged a bit more and Glacial Lake Outburst Flood now contains all information at Glacier run. Kcordina Talk 14:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in the United Kingdom[edit]

Would editors please note that there is another discussion for a related article at the bottom of the page! Somebody requested the debate be split and I have agreed. So, please contribute to that debate too as that one is being passed by at the moment. --kingboyk 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the talk page (where there are several comments about the pointlessness of this list), there is in the order of 25,000 schools in the UK. The list is already 177k, which way over the recommended article size. I believe WP:NOT (indiscriminate info) applies. Really a list like this is lacking on context, and it does nothing for the reader that the already quite intricately structured schools categories can't do a lot better.

Please note, this is not an anti-schools nomination (I'm in the "schools are notable" camp), it's anti-listcruft. Second note (very important one) - I anticipate that some editors will say "this list shows red links but categories don't" (and that, frankly my friends, is the only virtue of this list). Wikipedia is optimised for readers not editors, and categories are optimal for readers. If a redlink list is needed, it belongs in the schools WikiProject (see WP:Beatles for how we've been approaching this issue). Delete or move to the schools WikiProject. kingboyk 12:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. This was previously nominated just over a year ago and the result was Keep. --kingboyk 12:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added List of UK Independent Schools. This is a much smaller and more specialisted list so it is unreasonable to lump it in with this one, which has been nominated partly for its size, especially after some delete votes have been recorded. I will list it separately. CalJW 17:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC) One delete vote. --kingboyk 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  16:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK Independent Schools[edit]

Same principle. More-than-adequately served by categories, redlinks can be tracked in the WikiProject. --kingboyk 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was lumped together with a much smaller and more specialist list, which was unreasonable.

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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  16:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Gloucestershire[edit]

Many of the points I raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in the United Kingdom (2nd nomination) apply here too, particularly with regards to categorisation and the redlinks issue. In this case, I believe the list is rather more broken. It omits many of the villages which already have articles, and I don't trust all of the redlinks. The county of Gloucestershire and the unitary authority of South Gloucestershire already have comprehensive and well organised geographical categories (see Category:Towns in Gloucestershire (30entries), Category:Villages in Gloucestershire (111 entries), Category:Villages in South Gloucestershire (88), Category:Towns in South Gloucestershire (11)), and this list serves no additional useful purpose. Delete. kingboyk 12:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Categories are awesome and are way better for this kind of thing. As long as everything is dropped into the correct categories, and I trust kingboyk to have ensured that, then this serves no purpose other than looking like ass. Proto||type 14:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn. A clearly explained and well argued nomination. Kcordina Talk 14:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I tend to like to keep lists like this around until the red links are filled in, as places without articles inherently cannot be categorized and, therefore, the correct namespace for future articles are not as readily available to editors that may wish to create said article in the future (some articles that I have created have been due to stumbling onto red links). I have no objection to future deletion when the categories fill up, I would just hate to lose such a valuable tool for editors prematurely. I would vote delete for when the red links are filled (while I agree that Wikipedia should be optimized for readers over editors, it still is useful to have some deference paid to the people that are actually trying to put version 1.0 together, ie all of us) or if a good wikiproject is started. But for now, the one pro outweighs the cons. I would, instead, rather see the article have a "verify" tag to address concerns in the nom. youngamerican (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC) youngamerican (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion - dump a copy in Talk:Gloucestershire/list or somewhere similar, and put a note on the talk page of the article. We get rid of another crappy listcruft article that's of dubious veracity and accuracy (I can tell you for a fact there's a load of places missing, just from referring to my AA road atlas, and I can't find some that are on this list), and a copy is retained so people can 'fill in the red links' (always an awful reason for keeping lists). Proto||type 14:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcurft and per well explained nomination. --Terence Ong 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The categories are specialised. With this you don't have to know whether a place is a town, village or city. Scranchuse 17:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every county has one of these lists. They are the only overview in Wikipedia of all the settlements in a county. If this one needs a few corrections, please correct it. Nathcer 17:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having spent all day yesterday sorting out the categories? You must be joking! If it's so important to you, you fix it. Now do you see the problem? Almost every list on Wikipedia is unloved and lags behind the categories because whilst a few people will come here and speak up for them few people actually adopt these articles and ensure they stay up to date and focussed. --kingboyk 18:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't matter who fixes it. Most likely someone will one day and even imperfect articles are useful - which is a rather important underlying assumption of Wikipedia. A list of British places won't need much updating once it has been corrected once. Piccadilly 20:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful list. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not quite as good as the school lists but still worth keeping. -- JJay 02:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments by Scranchuse, Nathcer and Piccadilly. Simon Dodd 03:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Arab transference from Israel[edit]

This article is a POV fork of several articles: Israeli Arabs, Population_transfer#Middle_East and Avigdor Liberman Zeq 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also to be considered for deletion is this redirect : Israeli-Arab_eviction.

A quick look at the many (too many) sources listed will show that the author of the article completly misrepresent the truth about Liberman's ideas. (just see the talk page of the article itself for more details) Zeq 12:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tally[edit]

After 5 days, out of 20 votes we have 4 that voted to keep. Zeq 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

votes[edit]

  • Delete or merge with some Israeli politics article. --BWD (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article is a pure anti-Liberman POV push (by a user who admitted he has only found out who Liberman was this week), and a fork, and I'm not willing to work too much on it, although in principle I think it could become a decent article if the approach was changed. For instance, a clear lead section needs to be made, and the article should focus on the 1950s discussions (might be hard to source), and the paragraph about Liberman should be removed entirely. He isn't the only politician, and not the most notable, who has, at some point in his political career, remarked that he doesn't want Israeli Arabs in Israel. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 14:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, I am dispaointed from your vote. But maybe it is not your fault. More than anything, this article show how an editor can take a source like "Haaretz" (which has comntators from all sides of the Israeli political map) and use what is essetialy an election time propeganda (of those who wanted to smear Liberman) and use it as "sources" for Wikipedia article.
From the record I presonaly think that Liberman has some views that are facist but that is no excuse to falsify the article about his views. Zeq 19:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very quick note: actually, Zeq; my interest is not mainly in Liberman (which I tried to indicate above). But I see the subject pop up again and again through history (post 1948) due to demographics, read e.g. Tom Segev, Binational solution(The Friedlander-Goldscheider study). Huldra 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC) PS: have you read Segevs latest book?[reply]
Huldra, The issue is not that "it pops" but "what pops" and "by whom". There was a party in Israel that proposed tarnsfer, It was Kahane party that was outlawed. If Liberman would propose that he will not be able to run. It is aginst the law in israel to propose that. So what ever you think "poped" it is not the same thing as what this article suggests.
Liberman suggests exchange of land for land, same as the Geneva peace plan. Zeq 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, why does even The Times note: "[Liberman]] plans to strengthen Israel’s status as a Jewish state by transferring 500,000 of its minority Arab population to the West Bank, by the simple expedient of redrawing the West Bank to include several Arab Israeli towns in northern Israel. Another 500,000 would be stripped of their right to vote if they failed to pledge loyalty to Zionism." [34]
I am not trying to defend Liberman's idea's I am trying to make sure we have accurate articles that are not a POV fork. Even the London times (which is not 100% accurate) talks about redrawing of borders - so why do'nt you delete this article now ? Zeq 04:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under G1 by User:Dustimagic. Kotepho 01:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young man mair[edit]

This appears to me to be Speedy:nonsense. I have marked it for Speedy and for PROD -- in each case the tag has been removed, and the history does not indicate to me that this was done by other than the originator. I am therefore forced to bring this to AfD. Simon Cursitor 12:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transtopianism[edit]

The article was created and deleted before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transtopianism). Originally I speedily deleted it; now I am restoring it and bringing it here for more discussion (on creator's request and because the content is different enough to warrant a new vote). However, I don't believe it's notable enough to justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia. Weak delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any set criterion of 'notability'? If so, let me know. It did seem small to me, but the mailing list has over 900 members. I cant see how including relatively small movements would harm wikipedia. Crippled Sloth 22:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible Productions[edit]

Delete - Non notable company - Aksi_great 13:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Merge. Note that I haven't gone and done the merge, I'm leaving that to the experts. Stifle (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Communist Movement[edit]

The article World Communist Movement should really be redirected to History of Communism, since that's what it is actually about, but User:Soman, who appears to be a communist of some sort, won't permit this, so I am forced to nominate it for deletion. There is no such organisation as the World Communist Movement and most of the article is a general (not very good) history of communism since the dissolution of the Comintern. Adam 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

  • Comment: I oppose the deletion of this article, since it is not just a general history of communism, but about a specific current (which is also generally seen as the mainstream current of communism). However, if it is to be deleted, then I'd rather suggest incorporing it into communism directly. --Soman 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Having read the article, it really ought to be merged as suggested. If kept, it certainly needs a clean up. While it contains many statements of fact, which ought not be lost, there seems to be a little too much analysis (and POV) going on.Fluit 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not disputing that the article contains some (though not much) information. I'm disputing that the information belongs in an article of this title, which clearly creates the false impression that there is an organisation called the World Communist Movement. Adam 23:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have a 100% vote for deletion or merger. I will wait until Friday (7 days from the original listing), then do as Simon has suggested above: transfer any useful material to History of Communism (although I hate to think what I will find when I read that article, given Wikipedia's very poor record on communism-related articles), and then redirect this article there. Adam 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLemon[edit]

As the founder of WikiLemon, I deem the site not nearly notable enough to warrant its own article. Maybe when Neil Cicierega gets famous enough for Lemon Demon itself to warrant an article separate from his, then we'll start thinking about the notability of fansites... AdamAtlas 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric capacitivity[edit]

Poorly written, badly spelled and titles article name, on information properly and adequately covered in capacitance article. No need for redirect, only link to this page now is another page created by same author tagged for merger. Gene Nygaard 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, people come to encyclopedias looking for explanations, I've never heard the term "capacivity" before and I suspect it's a faulty translation. --Wtshymanski 02:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as a talk page of a deleted article. - Mike Rosoft 11:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Direct Method[edit]

This is a talk page for an article that was deleted; Speedy Deletion tag {{db-talk}} was removed. Esquizombi 14:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy deletion tag - the talk page has reasons why the page shouldn't be there. If this gets deleted, then there's nothing stopping the original spammer from making another page, and my having to repeat all previous comments. I fail to see any case at all for removal here? WoodenBuddha

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Three deletes, including the nominator, one keep (Monicasdude), and some anon votes which are discounted, makes 75% delete. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Crowley[edit]

This was prod-ed, but the prod was removed without comment. Mr. Crowley has an IMDB page [37], but I'm not sure that his credits are notable enough to merit inclusion, so I'm listing it here. Be careful about taking claims in the article at face-value; I couldn't find any credited connection to "Cops", for instance. -Colin Kimbrell 14:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't see anything either: [38]. PJM 15:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Regular producer/writer for TV documentary series that's been running on the History Channel since the last millennium, among many other credits. Here's a randomly selected episode credit [39]. Behind-the-camera craftsworkers are at least as notable as Pokemon characters, NFL taxi squad players, and the inevitably mentioned Air Force Amy. Monicasdude 20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Thank you, Monicasdude, for the recommended "strong keep." As for someone that's been involved in more than fifteen years of work in the industry, it's nice to see that others appreciate -- or acknowledge -- their work. I'm sure that Mr. Kimbrell understands that IMDb while being a helpful tool, is not anywhere near a complete clearinghouse for credits. There are literally HUNDREDS of shows that Mr. Crowley produced that are not currently listed on the IMDb database (not an unusual occurrance-- type in other known execs & producers, and you'll often find major gaps in their career timelines). It's curious to note that Mr. Kimbrell doesn't find Cops... the Academy Awards... the Emmys... Big Brother... Headliners & Legends... Trading Spouses... or any other number 'tof listed series, as "notable enough." All seem to represent either major milestones in recent TV history or as standouts in their form. Mr Kimbrell has a page at Wikipedia, yet has but a single IMDb listing. What is the standard for acceptance? I certainly wouldn't judge whether he deserves a listing, but I note the fact for others to see. And, yes, if Air Force Amy has a home here, why not a producer who does a daily battle in the TV production trenches?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.22.64.226 (talk • contribs)
  • Jeez, a lot to respond to there. The events and shows are notable, but not all the people connected with them necessarily are. To put it a different way, Yankee Stadium is notable, but the construction worker who installed the seats may or may not be. Most of Mr. Crowley's credits on IMDB are as a "Supervising Producer", which is kind of the middle management of TV work: not writing full time, and not creating shows, but more the logistical odds-and-ends that need to be done to get the show on the air. It's important work, and probably interesting work, but not in my mind encyclopedic, which is why I posted this here. His credit for "Big Brother" was as a "story editor", which is a position of similarly ambiguous importance, and I stand by my skepticism of his role in "Cops" or "Trading Spouses" (as well as the award shows), since the article doesn't describe his role or cite sources and there are zero google hits connecting him to those in any way, shape, or form. For all we know, he could've been Assistant Monkey Wrangler #4, or the intern they sent out for coffee and bagels. I agree that his writing work for the History Channel is the most noteworthy aspect of his career, but it's still something of a slender reed. Air Force Amy isn't really relevant to the discussion for two reasons: Her notability is grounded in widespread media coverage, which Mr. Crowley doesn't appear to have received, and furthermore, the "cruft justifies more cruft" argument generally doesn't generate much traction here, as it's much more easily turned around to use as an argument to delete both entries. I'm also confused as to your remark about me having a page at Wikipedia, since there's no entry for Colin Kimbrell (nor should there be, at this point). I have a user page, as does every other editor of the site, but that's not really connected to the encyclopedia itself. If Mr. Crowley wants to start editing here, and then adds a few details about his personal and professional life to his user page, more power to him; we've got a lot of work that still needs to be done on our coverage of TV shows. -Colin Kimbrell 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a comment or two about Mr. Crowley's credentials. It's very misleading to insinuate that he was "Assistant Monkey Wrangler #4" on any production, because he is an experienced veteran professional who commands great respect and admiration from his peers. He has indeed been a showrunner and writer for a number of series, and over the past decade has been a producer for many top shows, from Big Brother to World's Most Amazing Videos to NBC's Headliners and Legends. He is so well-known in the television community that he is featured in the FinalDraft script software's "Why I Write" advertising campaign. Most recently, he has made an impact in the Los Angeles media scene with his "Hollywood Thoughts" website, which breaks news about Los Angeles cultural shifts, while adding insight about its history-- from the recent closing of Schwab's, to coverage of the student immigration protests, and over the weekend, a tribute to a newsstand vendor that was picked up by the LA Daily News and has led to a groundswell for a memorial statue (the site laobserved.com links to him regularly). Perhaps Mr. Crowley can post his extensive CV to give a better idea. Strong recommendation to stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.22.64.229 (talk • contribs)

The things that you're saying about his credits are interesting and useful, but we need verifiable sources to confirm them if they're going to be in the encyclopedia. Right now, we don't have those, and in absence of proof, it's not trustworthy. That's the point I was trying to make with the "Assistant Monkey Wrangler" remark: Information that's unsourced and unsourcable is pretty much worthless. You seem to have a good knowledge base about Mr. Crowley's career; if you have references that meet the guidelines for this stuff (listed at WP:CITE and WP:OR), please add them to the article, as that's the best thing you can do to swing public opinion your way in a deletion discussion. -Colin Kimbrell 23:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: See JON M.CROWLEY at IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0189752/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9am9uIGNyb3dsZXl8ZnQ9MXxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8Y289MXxodG1sPTF8bm09MQ__;fc=1;ft=20;fm=1 See: http://www.scriptwritersshowcase.com/speakers.html Jon is one of the speakers featured as INDUSTRY LEADERS at the Scriptwiriters showcase this weekend in Universal City.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.22.64.229 (talk • contribs)

Reardless of how many times you voice your opinion, it will only be counted once. If you have subsequent comments after voicing your opinion, you should use either no header, or a neutral one such as Comment, instead of filling the thread with Keeps or Deletes. The IMDB biography you cite was already mentioned in the nomination, and the link to the workshop isn't very illustrative, since it's just his name on a big list of speakers. -Colin Kimbrell 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. What do you need, buddy... and why do you have it out for this guy? Look, Hollywood is a town of relationships. The guy is well-known and always working because of his pedigree. That's easy for everyone in town to recognize... why not you? This is the problem: The land of skin-ripping LaCrosse players is too far removed from the reality of this industry. Hire someone local to concentrate on these type of entries. Must every single gig have a URL to make you happy... and feeling "Trusting"? He's all over the web-- just google him. I think that whatever anybody says here, won't rate with you (Us: "He's a featured speaker at an event sponsored by big companies" You: "so what." Us: "He helped create a new form of software for TV writers (see Final Draft site)" You: "so what."). Whatever. At the end of the day, You're the guy holding the delete button. More power to you. All we can do is holler at the owners of this site to get people that are better informed in your position. As far as TS is concerned, I know that he helped format the very first show... and then streamlined the field operation on the second season. Day-to-day middle management? In your view of the world, probably so. In ours, No. He helped CREATE the LOOK, PACING, AND VOICE of a top-rated show. Not bad for a seat-installer, huh? As for cops? Hey-- was the 'net around in the first season when he did his time in the old Barbour-Langley Marina offices? Geez. Obviously the guy has a successful record. I've worked for him-- he also created/ produced the Animal Planet show, "That's My Baby" (in both primetime & daytime. Daytime was a #1 hit for that show. Marta Kauffman said several times it was her "very favorite" show. Again, notable that the producer of the nation's #1 show (that's "Friends," Colin-- in case you missed it watching the LaCrosse team). He also helped create the first blind date show on TV ("A Dating Story" for TLC). I know at one point, he was doing, like, five shows at the same time. I think only Bruckheimer has more shows going. Man. It makes my head spin that there are people who live and breathe this net stuff so completely.That some dude -- a student at Duke University -- is sitting in judgment of this guy's career-- blows me away. "Those that do, create. Those who can't..." I guess sit on a computer all day. More importantly, it's amazing to see how easy it is for someone to dismiss the integrity of his peers from the pulpit of his dorm. So be it. The annonimity of the web allows for this to happen on a daily basis. And, yes, the "Amy" argument IS relevant: It's good to know that women who spread their legs in a Nevada double-wide are good enough for the 'ol 'Wik... but a guy that makes millions of people laugh or cry on a nightly basis, doesn't rate. Go ahead, Colin... hit the delete button. It's US... we're all wrong... and YOU are always right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.22.64.226 (talk • contribs) .
Why are you talking about lacrosse? Do you mean the town, or the college, or the sport? I'm confused... -Colin Kimbrell 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for some of the other stuff, that's all great if it's true, but none of it is sourced, and most of it isn't even in the article. To re-iterate an earlier point: If you want this article to be kept, the best thing you can do is find a mention of Mr. Crowley's work in a book or a newspaper or a magazine and add it to the article as a citation. It doesn't have to be online; just add it like you would've added a book citation for a term paper back in college. -Colin Kimbrell 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you note that you worked for Mr. Crowley, I should probably also call your attention to WP:AUTO, which states, "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." In that spirit, if you do decide to improve the article, please try to keep your work in line with WP:NPOV.-Colin Kimbrell 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalendar Koffee House[edit]

Non-notable coffeehouse with aspirations to being a local chain. Also advertising and apparent vanity article, as all but one of the previous edits are by one of the proprietors. An all but identical article was tagged for AFD at Kalendar Koffee House Company a couple of days ago. Because of the time lapse before Bridesmill found this, I'm putting it up for a separate vote. Delete. DMG413 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks NASDAQ: SBUX (SEHK: 4337), is a large multinational chain of coffee shops, often serving pastries, popular in the US especially among students and young urban professionals. The corporate headquarters are in Seattle, Washington. The company was in part named after Starbuck, a character in Moby-Dick, and its insignia is a stylized cartoon Siren. According to the company's fact sheet, as of February 2006, Starbucks had 6,216 company-operated outlets worldwide: 5,028 of them in the United States and 1,188 in other countries and U.S. territories. In addition, the company has 4,585 joint-venture and licensed outlets, 2,633 of them in the United States and 1,952 in other countries and U.S. territories.

  • It's still not notable - see Wikipedia:Notability for more information. Sorry. --Khoikhoi 04:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By definition most of the listings in the coffee house category are "non-notable". In fact the majority of the listings are not known outside the constituency where they are established. Being "non-notable" has always been a difficult area for editors. In this instance for example, the band The Pursuit of Happiness wrote a song and video about Kalendar (1996 Kalendar/Gretzky Rocks/In Praise Of (T.W.A.-The World's Address). This by definition makes Kalendar a noteable entity by Wikipedia standards see Wikipedia:Notability "A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact". EllisCHanna 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, if something is not notable, it is a pretty good reason to delete it; see WP:N and WP:ENC. The comparison to Starbucks is irrelevant, as that company clearly meets an inclusion standard, WP:CORP, based on the second word of its article (NASDAQ). Also, if there are other non-notable coffee houses with articles, instead of those being a reason to keep this article, consideration must be made as to whether those should be deleted as well (i.e, "two wrongs don't make a right"). --Kinu t/c 04:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (Cross-post from my talk page.)[reply]
  • Ellis, if it was a chain I'd reconsider, but I just don't see any claims for notability. --Khoikhoi 05:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Khoikhoi. Point well made. Not being a chain is a very good RFD and this should have been the only point voted on. Claims of being "non-noteable", or "advertising" or my favorite "vanspamvertisment" are invalid. I will respectfully remove the Kalendar listing from the coffee house category until we have a number of locations and qualify for inclusion.EllisCHanna 05:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete - among established Wikipedians, the vote is about split. BD2412 T 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Inside_Carolina[edit]

Message boards are not suitable for Wikipedia joekiser 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a web directory, but your statement is false; it does cover message boards which are notable (compare Slashdot, Fark). --Sneftel 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Modified vote to) Keep and rewrite, per kotepho. Article is as bad as it gets right now, but if it's notable it's notable and deserves a better one. --Sneftel 04:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Message boards are suitable for Wikipedia. Joe Kiser is insane.Stunnaman2k5
  • Keep InsideCarolina's message boards are notably influential at the school and often are referenced elsewhere. In fact, a very high selling book (To Hate Like This is to be Happy Forever) spends a great deal of time talking about the goings-on at the IC forums, and it makes sense to have an entry for people to reference. 24.163.67.42 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Scott O[reply]
  • KeepInside Carolina isn't a "normal" message board. I don't know of any other message boards that have been alluded to in such publications as Sports Illustrated, "To Hate Like This...", etc. IC is a great message board with a rich history. There is no reason for this entry to get deleted. It is merely a collection of articles from IC's beloved fanbase.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goheelsduksux (talk • contribs)
  • Keep SI/Book reference kotepho 03:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IC is probably beyond a message board, and is an online community. Members share a common interest in University of North Carolina and the virtual community provides unique experiences and connections. Beyond the avatars are real people, sharing their wit, wisdom, opinions, dumbness, humor, and emotions. IC has been referenced in books and in the media. Wikipedia entry could be very useful in explaining to newcomers and the rest of the world (1) what is in Roy's little finger, (2) who "I'm Stephanie, my name is Stephanie", (3) the legend of Manhattan Heel, (4) the correct spelling of dook, and (5) that Tar Heel must be two words (don't even ask). brewguru
  • Speedy keep and close I tried to close this, as it's a bad faith joke for some schoolkid trolls, but was reverted by User:Isopropyl. Could an admin step in and just get make this go away, please? It's not a valid AFD, there is no valid reason given for deletion, and keeping it open is just troll-feeding. Proto||type 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Inside Carolina is not a forum. It's a magazine and website that happens to have a forum (well-stocked by trolls, it seems). Proto||type 15:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I'm very sorry Proto, but regardless of your opinion of the nomination, this AfD will remain open until there is a consensus or five days are up, whereupon it shall be closed by a closing admin, not us. I do agree that this is a troll magnet, but the article itself is rather inflammatory. Perhaps tidying up the page a bit would be more useful than trying to close this debate. Isopropyl 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect - Liberatore(T) 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Finlay[edit]

This article admits that nothing more is known so nothing more will ever be added. It's pointless to keep it because everything here is already stated in the John Finlay article. —P199 15:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lioness[edit]

Delete Unidentified Cruft Object, repeatedly refusing to identify itself... -- Mareklug talk 15:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teens for Tomorrow[edit]

Delete TFT does not appear to be of any real signifigance Teens for Tomorrow is not a legitimate organization. It is a just a way for high school students to look good for college.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William McGuiness[edit]

The article appears to be false. I couldn't find any trace of the subject with a web search for the full name. Maghull is not under martial law. Pseudomonas 15:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Riisa Helgesen[edit]

Hoax, no such player, 0 Google hits. Punkmorten 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Kerley[edit]

I can't find any web evidence of this individual's existence, there's none provided, and in any case, I don't think he's significant enough for inclusion Pseudomonas 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not Delete. Well if you so called researchers did your "jobsworths" jobs properly you would find out who Mr Kerley M.B.E really was and would not disclaim his name with these wild and absurd fallacys that you provide. This seems like another goose attempt of sabatoge on the behalf of the working man and therefore provide basis of your right wing sympathies and other connections. Therefore i would glady appreicate that you leave articles on that have meaning to people who like to appreicate pears and not delete because you never thought of it first. After reading many of your "edits", i find them flawed and half truths. Do not insult my superior knowledge on history and other events. For instance when did the Roman Empire end? exactly.
(comment left by Parkerds, 12:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • In response to your reply, i find it nothing more than liberal spin and it shows the true colours of this clique which seems to have inflitrated the Wikipedia, i once loved and knew. As none of you are from the area of concern, you would not understand the importance and influence Mr Kerley M.B.E has had on his local society in the Education and Technological sectors, instead of pen pushing your liberal "polices of conduct", do some proper research and you will see why so many people, especially St.Helens regard him as their "finest son". For one personally i feel that the attack on my page is very biast and unneccesary, it is some hidden agenda to remove me from this site. The information i have posted since i joined has been factual and i feel hurt that my information has not been accepted. Therefore it comes to this sad conclusion that i may have to retire and join my good friends Walter Smith 0.B.E and Archie Knox in creating Fylespedia.
(unsigned comment left by Parkerds, 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of layout engines (DOM)[edit]

  • KEEP because information is actually usefull...(aman)
  • Delete because this is an encyclopedia and you wouldn't find this in an encyclopedia.
  • Keep It's true, useful information that various other articles may well link to. Pseudomonas 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks like a cut and past copyrite violation. Anyone know the source?Obina 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a technical manual of niche software features. Sandstein 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT... not even an encyclopedia article per se. It appears to be WP:OR as well. It's not a C & P copyvio as far as I can tell.--Isotope23 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. --Khoikhoi 03:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - if one wants an encyclopedia one shall resort to britannica et al. Wikipedia will never resemble those, no matter how hard one individual tries. One can deduce the cause of this with simple logic. On the other hand the same reason enables it to have far greater virtues. :Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.:Slicky 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "If one wants an encyclopaedia" implies wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. The issue is not size limit or notability; the issue at hand is whether or not this is encyclopaedic. Please bear that in mind. Copyvio? --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 06:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sandstein's comments above. --Hetar 08:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Anyone supporting deletion should compare the page to the Wikipiedia's article Comparison of Browsers, which is a very well known and well bookmarked encyclopedia page! The Comparison of layout engines (DOM) article is a table, and last I knew it table data had a place in encyclopedias, regardless of whether some editors see it as jargon or not. --Heyseuss 03:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sandstein is wrong. This is not a manual, but a comparison table. The article, with its siblings comparing CSS-support, HTML and XHTML supoort, etc, is informative, referenced to and talked about on the Inernet, and very useful. Even Encyclopedias can contain specialised information. Read Encyclopedia Brittanica's articles about quantum physics and you'll see. The article also cites relevant sources, and is not OR. ANd it's definately not a copyright violation. It's a summary of the information available in the sources. Are there anyone who knows DOM-scripting or have read the sources among the people who would like to see this page go? --itpastorn 20:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Per Inc.[edit]

The article has no context as to why the person or organization merits being in an encyclopedia, makes vague references to a Supreme Court case without telling all and sundry what it it about, and is an ad for both the subject's activist legal services and a documentary about same, and has major POV problems. Pat Payne 15:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kantilal Jivan[edit]

A non-notable local historian who has picked up an local environmental award at some point. That's the only thing verifiable about him, and, interestingly, that's not even mentioned in the article.

Awesomely, the article claims he has been visited (not just met, they have visited him Queen Elizabeth II, Mother Theresa, Ian Fleming (who supposedly featured our megastar as a character in his last Bond novel-oh no he did not!), Omar Sharif, and Tony Blair.

He is supposedly a polymath, guru, historian, natural history expert, palmist, vegetarian cook, photographer, artist and sculptor, agronomist and intellectual. So it asserts notability.

Was tagged (by me) with prod, but this was removed. Delete Proto||type 15:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable enough and written about often enough, e.e., [40]. Monicasdude 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Married life in the Qur'an and the Sunnah[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hæstkuk[edit]

Aside from being about a non-English word, this is a badly written dicdef. Punkmorten 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that mention each day of the week[edit]

List with two entries, not useful. Punkmorten 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chedward[edit]

nn micronation, not famous or well-known. Punkmorten 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  16:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto (NZ band)[edit]

A "kiwi band with 2 albums and an EP", but it doesn't say whether they were released on a label, or whether they got a substantial following. A search for their second album Pipe Lines Under The Ocean gets, when excluding Wikipedia mirrors, 86 Google hits, many of which are related only to Operation Pluto. Admittedly, this is a borderline case — they did play at Big Day Out last year. Punkmorten 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couch potato illustrated[edit]

nn podcast, no evidence of notability. Technically, no claim either, but it's detailed enough that I felt AfD was worth it. Mangojuice 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you voting Keep on every debate? It sure looks that way. Why? Mangojuice 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have disappeared[edit]


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

The page Phil Brown (Nepean) was deleted by User:Alabamaboy with the delete summary (content was: '{{copyvio|url=http://www.jacksonbrown.on.ca/jba/pb-profile.php}}'). This AFD is hereby closed. —Encephalon 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page history

Phil Brown (Nepean)[edit]

Vanity, NN, violates WP:AUTO. Delete Ardenn 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Author agrees to early deletion.

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwood Mall[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOLE (psychology)[edit]

Non-notable (unpublished) neologism by non-notable academic. Delete. Rockpocket 17:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was um... delete? Stifle (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Tune Forum[edit]

Non-notable website per WP:WEB, most likely created by a member. Delete. Hestemand 17:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - it's a unique, notable forum with a popular worldwide following and strong history User:Pickup Stix 01:22, April 2 2006 (UTC)

    • Vote discounted by admin due to lack of contributions.

Keep. an important community

    • Vote discounted by admin due to lack of contributions.
  • Delete - pointless, only interesting to a minority (even of ninja tune forum users themselves), factually wrong, not as funny as ascii-penii. a waste of perfectly good webspace. greetings, honicz honicz
    • Vote discounted by admin due to lack of contributions.
  • Dance While the record spins.berusplants
    • Vote discounted by admin due to not being relevant.
  • Keep Its a constant source of interesting musical offerings searched out by all kinds of oddballs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.173.165 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 April 2006.
    • Vote discounted by admin due to being an anon.
  • Delete forum users are losers, particularly that honicz lad or so I hear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.25.200 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 April 2006.
    • Vote discounted by admin due to being an anon.
  • Delete Inaccurate and embarassing for all members of the ninja forum. Frank_Spoon
    • Vote discounted by admin due to no such user.
  • Delete per nom. Stasomat 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote discounted by admin due to lack of contributions.
  • Keep No less a part of internet sub-culture than somethingawful or fark, both of which have entires. Although I agree that the article needs work. Klausk 08:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote discounted by admin due to lack of contributions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Well, i dont know how to edit this page properly, so im just going to type

"Delete Inaccurate and embarassing for all members of the ninja forum. Frank_Spoon "

the very fact that someone feels it may be embarressing for the users suggests to be they feel some kind of owenership, therefore it is real.

keep it on wiki

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lao Watson-Smith[edit]

Delete. There's a vague claim of notability here: started two businesses and was interviewed by CNN about conditions in Zimbabwe, but not because he was per se important but for what they call in the media "human interest". Ultimately, this person has to be NN. For another example, consider this article. Prod remover said, "significant player in significant dispute w/worldwide press coverage." Well, no. Insignificant human interest story subject in a significant dispute. - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 17:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Few googles which do not indicate notability with the first one being Wikipedia [43] and the Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky" leads right back here [44]. nn possible vanity.--Dakota ~ ° 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From one of the article's references: "Retired Anglican Archbishop and Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu of South Africa is supporting formation of a charity to aid commercial farmers in Zimbabwe affected by the government's controversial land reforms.
The Zimbabwe Agricultural Trust has been established in Britain to "provide a focal point for international support" for farming families and other agricultural workers caught up in the haphazard and sometimes violent land redistribution program. The aim is to alleviate the "hardship and suffering" of those farmers who have been directly affected by the civil unrest, according to Lao Watson-Smith, the trust's administrator.
Tutu, who condemned his own government's endorsement of Zimbabwe's controversial presidential election in March, is patron of the trust."
Land expropriation and redistribution in Zimbabwe may not merit the same coverage Wikipedia gives to Jack Thompson, but it's not a completely dispensible matter. Monicasdude 20:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

 (aeropagitica)  16:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medievia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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


I feel that this article is generally describing any mu* on the internet and see no reason for a special entry on it, especially with all the controversy surrounding the whole thing. Tearstar 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Medievia is fairly large as MUDs go, and if anything, the controversy only makes it more notable. If any MUD deserves an article, this one does. Ehheh 18:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Medievia is a very significant MUD. It ranks #4 over at The Mud Connector [46] and has its own version of ZMUD [47]. The controversy is just another reason why this MUD deserves an article. Its case is significant for the copyright precedent it could have on thousands of other similar games. --Hetar 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. I am willing to reconsider though if somone can post information meeting that criteria.--Isotope23 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete opinion removed per AfD nominator's request... though I will say that the Keeps did a rather poor job of laying out any coherent or meaningful argument for notibility that would meet any accepted wikipedia guidelines... but if Tearstar wants to let them slide that is Tearstar's business.--Isotope23 13:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as above. For great justice. 20:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I second the "keep" votes above and, in fact, feel that the article's discussion of the license violation controversy should be expanded, and given greater prominence. I must also question the user Tearstar's motives in listing this article for deletion. A cursory look at his/her list of contributions reveals that he/she has contributed to a couple of MUD related articles, namely Sancara and Legends of Cosrin. "Tearstar", in fact, appears to maintain a website related to the latter. Therefore, "Tearstar" appears to hold contradictory views on the subject of Wikipedia entries for MUDs, unless his/her opinions have radically changed in the last few weeks. Traumerei 02:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
My opinions are not biased, I feel that this mud should deserve an article, I personally feel that it is a notable MUD, however my problem is the details of the article are very much the same as every other MUD, I could copy this entire article and use it for every other MUD that is out there. My reason for commenting/modifying/monitoring mud articles is because of my deep knowledge of many muds they are what i spend all my time doing. (I have played Cosrin for about 8 years) but I feel that if this article is to be included, then it should have some major points of inclusion, not simply how to play a mud or describing every other mud. If there is nothing of note other than the controversy then I feel it should be removed or somehow listed under MUD, but if someone would like to reformat it, tell us why it should have it's own article, then I would have no problem with it existing, but the article in and of itself needs to tell readers more than what a general mud is. And the criteria it would fall under Isotope23 would be WP:SOFTWARE which I do understand is not policy yet, but proposed Tearstar 07:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFTWARE is proposed policy; I personally don't apply policies that have not been generally accepted... to me they are meaningless. It is content delivered over the internet, and WP:WEB is the closest policy to apply, though I guess "another MUD with no distinguishing characteristic from any other MUD and no evidence of external notability" would work too.--Isotope23 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tearstar, I believe your comments lack merit. Your statement that you could clone this article to describe any other MUD makes little sense; for instance, there aren't several other MUDs with large playerbases that are also guilty of blatant license violations. Looking at the Legends of Cosrin and Sancara articles, I see nothing particularly unique about those either, they read like advertisements for those games in fact (which is not permissible under WP:WEB). The Medievia article, while certainly lacking in polish, does collate several important critiques of the game, as well as an overview. If you felt that the article needed improvement, you should've added to the Talk page discussion, rather than indulge in this seemingly trollish attempt to subvert the Wikipedia deletion process. If you feel the article deserves to exist, but doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality standards, well there's already a process for that, and the article had been tagged to reflect that. I look upon this article, in addition to an overview of the MUD, as the kernel of a case study in software license violations, and a general example of how, on occasion, the Free Software community is unable to enforce software licenses due to the cost of litigation. I'd welcome expansion of the article in that direction from qualified contributors.Traumerei 05:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very poor article and needs to be cleaned up in many different ways. Currently the whole article is about how it's based on Merc, with some discussion about how it was claimed to have been "completely rewritten". It leaves out that it was "completely rewritten" multiple times, and generally downplays the significance of any opposition to what Michael Krause says. Since this is an articles for deletion thing, notability is enough for a Keep vote. The content of the article does need to be fixed up, but AfD is not the process for it. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect toGuitar chord - Liberatore(T) 18:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_major_chord_shapes_for_guitar[edit]

The contents are better explained and described on Guitar chord Andeggs 18:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect, somewhat per admin fiat. Stifle (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_minor_chord_shapes_for_guitar[edit]

The contents are better explained and described on Guitar chord Andeggs 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected as this already was done for List of major chord shapes for guitar... just need the AfD closed out so the redirect can work.--Isotope23 16:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hyacinth reverted the redirect. Please can an administrator close this AfD and put the REDIRECT command on the List of minor chord shapes for guitar page. Cheers. Andeggs 09:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 1 Redirect, 8 Keep, 9 Delete, so no consensus, unfortunately. Stifle (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer[edit]

I don't like nominating this just three and a half months after a keep vote, but this article violates WP:WINAD, WP:V, and WP:OR. Some of you may think that Wikipedia should be a dictionary, and that neologisms and slang are entirely acceptable, but unverifiable original research is never acceptable. I merged and redirected the article to sexual slang, but was reverted. Given that this article is unacceptable as is, and I was reverted after a merge, I bring it to AfD, and I vote to delete. Brian G. Crawford 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as before, with a clothespin on the nose, and protect if necessary. PJM 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous AfD on this and similar topics. There is consensus for now that this sort of common sex slang is individually notable and worthy of inclusion. Istead of having this sort of AfD every couple of weeks, there should instead be a centralized discussion to determine if this sort of thing should have an article, be merged into a sex slang article, or purged. youngamerican (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the previous nomination of this article had a shaky basis (that dirty topics should not be available on wikipedia which is accessible by minors). Objections to the AfD referred to that, not to the policy violations which have been brought up this time. GT 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yea, and here is the original [52]
Consensus does not support unverifiable original research. Brian G. Crawford 20:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems that, perhaps because of WP:IAR or because of the common use of this and other related phrases in (at least American) pop culture, there seems to be consensus that this sort of thing belongs in the 'pedia. Additionally, do you believe that the entire article is OR, or just the variation crap that I agree should be removed? youngamerican (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using what reliable source to verify it? Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverified crap. Esquizombi 20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. If it needs sources, tag it as such, sheesh. It's obviously quite a notable revolting act, and it's referenced all over the place. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is definately a page worth keeping, I googled "define: cleaveland steamer" after my friend said that he did it to his girlfriend (who he loves and respects) and all I got was this. Without this page I (and many others) would have remained ignorant to the meaning of this disguisting act, and may have used the term unwittingly and been made a complete ass of. It should, however, be preempted with a warning that it contains offensive content and should not be viewed by people who do not wish to be exposed to it. Deleting a term that is so commonly used based on the fact that it is not sourced is ridiculous, I mean who is going to do scholarly research on something like this? Personally, after reading about it I knew I had to run out and try it and it was awesome. Without this article I would have never discovered my fecophilia —This unsigned comment was added by 65.110.26.195 (talk • contribs) .

The above user's only edits are contributions to this deletion discussion. Brian G. Crawford 21:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The perfect argument for deletion. If Wikipedia is the primary source, the article is, by definition, original research. No reliable sources were identifiedd during or following the previous AfD, none have been identified yet (God forbid that we ever allow the Urban Dictionary as a reliable source), this article is unverifiable and always has been - so it must go. Just zis Guy you know? 21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that ideally there should be some way of warning people who *really* don't want to see this kind of stuff, but then whose criteria would we follow? Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, and it could be the thin end of a very large wedge. Probably better to categorise appropriately and let others develop their own solutions. Fourohfour 11:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "I mean who is going to do scholarly research on something like this?" That's part of the problem and part of why it should be deleted. Some people evidently get their jollies out of inventing fictional sex acts and creating names for those acts, and then inventing fictional variations thereon and names for those variations... but Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Is the Cleveland Steamer real, and are the variations on it real? There's no WP:V way of knowing that from the article, which is full of unsourced claims and speculation. Actual practices that are actually used, that are preferably documented by sex researchers is what is desireable for an encyclopedia. There are plenty of other places on the web to develop unencylopedic total BS. Esquizombi 14:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be worth your not looking at it from a strictly academic standpoint. It's possible no one's actually performed the Cleveland Steamer. It doesn't mean that the concept didn't make the rounds in, say, a song by platinum music group Tenacious D or in an official FCC government document. The concept may be false, but the usage of the term is absolutely real and encyclopedic. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment If the unsourced claims in the introduction and the unsourced variations can be pared down to what can be sourced through popular culture references, maybe the article could be kept. Do you think that would be acceptable, or is all the BS going to keep creeping back in? Esquizombi 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Note that the reference in the government document is nothing more than its presence in a quoted television transcript that the FCC considers obscenity. We've already established that the words have a meaning, so this in no way furthers your argument. GT 21:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just fixed the article, removing everything I couldn't verify. My reliable source is some guy named Adam that I met at Dartmouth College in 1992. Somehow, I don't think that's how a Wikipedia article is supposed to be written. If WP:IAR applies, however, then I should be able to reap the benefits of that view as well and do whatever I want with Cleveland steamer. My facetious little point is that you can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim that WP:IAR applies and allows you to keep the steamer, then I can say that it also applies to me and I can edit it, merge it, or redirect it however I see fit without approval from anyone. If this indeed is the consensus, that WP:IAR applies, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination and just merge and redirect as the spirit moves me. Brian G. Crawford 17:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is one way of looking at it. I'm not sure how much leeway ArbCom or an admin would give you if you got into a post-AfD edit war by using IAR (which may be your point). As it stands, I am not thrilled with the inclusion of this sort of stuff on AfD, but consensus is pretty clear thusfar, and part of the manner that AfD (and frankly any semi/quasi/pseudo-judicial body) gains credibility is a respect for consensus and precendent. At AfD, we interpret if a given article is consistent with inclusion guidelines or, if no guidelines are explicitly set, past consensus on AfD. This debate should be moved over to a centralized discussion to establish notability guidelines for ths sort of article (where we would likely be on the same side). That is where we legislate guidelines, this is where we follow through with consistency. That being said, your latest stub version is a vast improvement, as sometimes the best edit is a mass-deletion. youngamerican (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assure you, I have no intention of violating WP:POINT. I was just making a rhetorical point. I would like to see all these sexual urban legends moved to a single page where content could be carefully monitored to prevent vandalism, ad hoc neologisms, and endless lists of frivolous "pop culture references." I really don't see the encyclopedic value in noting every time the Dirty Sanchez is mentioned in teen movies and cartoons. Some people, probably mostly children, think that these "sex moves" are the funniest thing they've ever heard of, and seem to want to share this kind of thing with anyone they can. Maybe this sort of humor serves the purpose of alleviating anxiety about sexual activity. Maybe writing articles like this one gives the author the same kind of thrill as writing an obscene message in a public place. I don't know. I could write pages on why this kind of article hurts the Wikipedia project, but AfD isn't the place. I agree that there probably should be a centralized discussion on sexual slang articles. Brian G. Crawford 03:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Can you please clarify how making a rhetorical point doesn't violate WP:POINT? In addition, whilst I agree that there are too many cases in Wikipedia of "In film Y, X was mentioned", this applies to *many* articles. I've said this elsewhere, but I believe you're focussing on articles for things you dislike personally (which I believe is reflected in your comments above and some others). Regarding this and related AfDs, you make some valid points and I'm quite happy to agree with you in principle on them (regardless of your opinion of me which is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion). However, I believe you're being very selective about the sort of articles you apply the rules to; very stringent regarding the verifiability rules and quite willing to delete material for this article. At the same time, you practically disregard WP:POINT. Fourohfour 12:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOT censored, stop renominating this for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer had a very clear consensus. Silensor 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. FloNight talk 04:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The article is accurate sexual slang. Deleting it is neo-puritanical censorship plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.180.51 (talk • contribs) The vote above is this user's only contribution to Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 21:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've removed the original research template and identified the article as a stub. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but stubs can be dictionary definitions that will be expanded into articles later. The article does contain links to sources, thus making the original research template misleading here. -- backburner001 05:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has repeatedly accused me of vandalism for removing unverifiable and unsourced material. Brian G. Crawford 21:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Not one of those "sources" is a WP:RS so OR may still apply. Esquizombi 13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The issue of reliable sources is different from claiming that there is original research in the article. I attempted to change to a different template that identified the issue of whether or not the sources are reliable, but my attempts at doing such continue to be reverted. If the discussion over this nomination is framed correctly, I will consider changing my vote. Until then, I can only assume that this article was nominated in bad faith. -- backburner001 21:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this user is accusing me of acting in bad faith. I'm sick of his accusations, his rude comments, and his harassment here and on my talk page. Brian G. Crawford 22:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a fictional sex act which, save for its presence on popular internet lists of humorous extreme (and fictional) sex acts, would not have a name. Thus this article will never be able to be expanded to have any content other than what it is and where it originated. Wikipedia is not a dictionary so such entries don't belong here. GT 21:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Believe me, I hate to disappoint you here, but sadly this sex act is not fictional. There are plenty of internet videos which will, unfortunately, corroborate this. Your opinion that this article cannot ever be expanded is quite limited. Silensor 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice - IE no replacement. The act is one thing which may or may not occur, and has perfectly goodadequate words to describe it with in English. WP is not a thesaurus and there is no need for this paraphilic euphemism to have an encyclopaedia article. If it made it into an article on coprophilia, as a clause in a line, then that might be encyclopaedic, and would properly be a mattter for the editors collaborating on that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgley (talk • contribs) 19:48, April 5, 2006
  • Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radagast83 (talk • contribs) 00:45, Apr 6, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is simply a dic def and does not show relevence. GilliamJF 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only is it sexcruft of the worst kind, neither of the cited sources is reliable, so it is unverifiable by policy. Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into sexual slang. bbx 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The article is valid. Deleting it is censorship. Manufracture 02:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. Sandstein 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The article is valid. I have seen it. I have done it. The fact that so many people have had issue with this entry means that it exists. Those who disagree with this entry are censoring because it does not show relevence in Their lives.
Comment, I see this is your first edit. If you realized what AfD were for you would know that they are not about censoring articles. Radagast83 19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak KEEP If it needs verification and sources, perhaps we should tag it as such? I'm scared of what sort of sources we'd find on it though. Oh dear God, how I'm scared. Sethimothy 00:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MC Caveman[edit]

The editor appears to wish to discuss this deletion issue. AfD is the appropriate forum for that.

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clo and Joe Theory of Hatology[edit]

Original Research - close to nonsense.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete; merging or not can be worked out on the talk pages. Stifle (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Static grass[edit]

NN concept. There are bunches of google hits, but not all of them are about this. Prod remover didn't so much think it's notable, just wasn't convinced it was NN. Now it's all o' y'all's turn :) - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is my vote for now, but I reserve the right to change it to, say, redirect, if somebody proposes a good redirect target. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - static grass really is a tool used by wargamers to make realistic surfaces. You can find a relatively large number of refs searching for 'wargaming' and 'static grass'. For great justice. 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we pretty much know it's a real tool. The better question here is, how widely is it used? Is it written about in the media? Even cruft-media? Is it a big enough deal to merit its own article rather than a redirect into, say, Wargaming? - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë
So you accept that it's real, and used, and that people might come here to find out what it is, and you still want to delete it? That's odd. If you want to merge and redirect it, go ahead. That's not really compatible with wanting to delete it. For great justice. 20:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; not sure what we conventionally do with obscure things like this, but this should be covered somewhere. Besides the bunches of google hits, there are a number of books on google books that talk about this stuff ([54]) and at least the first page seems relevant. So I lean toward keep but merge (into wargaming or Miniature wargaming) wouldn't be the end of the world. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HEY! Somebody set up us the deletion! Where it go? For great justice. 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's back. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All deletions of UKPaulo were destroyed. It seems to be peaceful. For great justice. 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I must apologise for having mistakenly deleted Static grass. I'm not too sure what went on, I was deleting uncontested {{prod}}ded articles based on the highlighted articles on this list. I guess I clicked the wrong link, but am surprised I hadn't noticed that {{prod}} had been removed, maybe I was viewing a cached version of the page :S. Anyhow, I'm sorry about that mistake, and Spangineer has now restored the article. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, I'm tempted to speedy delete it for no meaningful content and lack of context. Is this something in a game? Is this a real phenomenon of grass? WTF is even being talked about here? At any rate delete whatever this is. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the article clearly explains, it's a method of creating realistic looking 'grass' for tabletop wargaming. I'm disapointed that you want to delete it simply because you don't know what it is. See [55] and here for more info. For great justice. 22:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that I don't know what it is as the fact that the article doesn't provide any context for it. I still don't know if this is something fictional or something real. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean by that? For great justice. 23:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn = not notable; that is, the topic isn't important/common enough to warrant a wikipedia article. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? In whose opinion? It's a notable part of table-top wargaming model building, which is important to some people. For great justice. 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Eusebeus's opinion. People have different opinions about what things deserve a wikipedia article, so they all get to discuss the issue here. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with and redirect to miniature figure. —Ruud 02:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Ruud. I would have thought merging with miniature wargaming would make more sense than miniature figure, however. I would agree with Angr that the article is lacking context, and is barely more than a dictionary definition at the moment. Whilst I would agree that static grass is clearly real, I'm not convinced it's something sufficiently notable to merit an encyclopedia article in it's own right (correct me if I'm wrong, but it's never got much potential to become anything other than a few lines worth of definition). However, someone looking up Static grass on WP should see something, and thus a merge and redirect could see the defintion remain in place. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that redirection is in order, just not deletion. For great justice. 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Alabamaboy kotepho 01:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Scheiner[edit]

Made up vanity nonsense. (Added: he has no WSOP fame. None of it is true. He's just a high school kid.) 2005 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under A6 by User:Alabamaboy. Kotepho 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy21[edit]

Personal attack Kammat 20:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die Section[edit]

Seemingly-NN Dallas-area band whose prime claim to fame is being chatted up by Wayne Static in a few interviews. Released two demo EPs (the second on "BandBitch Records", which appears to be a vanity imprint of their management team), contributed to the soundtracks of their lead singer's indie movie and a few NN extreme-bicycling flicks. Googling the band + primary composer gives <50 Ghits; no All Music entry. - Rynne 20:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 march snowfall[edit]

A weather report from the Bay Area, California. Not an encyclopedic entry, and never will be. I'm also very worried about the Pokémon effect here. Eivindt@c 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted per CSD:G7. Stifle 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Play Magazine[edit]

Orphaned AfD.

Looks like the article's author, ScribeX (talk · contribs), wishes the article deleted. He's already blanked most of the content. I'm going to mark it as speedy G7. Fan1967 23:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantina[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The fact that Cantina is a Spanish word doesn't help its case on English Wikipedia. SandBoxer 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of disputed FOSS terminology[edit]

Basically, this article tries to tell how the Free Software and Open Source people describe various things. Then it adds "unambiguous terms", "neutral terms" and "common terms" - okay, these may be interesting, and certainly true, but could be construed either as either as pushing a PoV, or as an attempt to try to settle the differences between the camps through the article. (Is peace-building PoV?) Anyway, even if you find sources for this stuff (not much sources here!), and remove the things, you're left with short list of stuff that's not really article-worthy, and possibly not even merge-worthy. Certainly pain to expand and possibly better described in the respective articles. Or do we even need to mention this stuff anywhere? wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing OR cruft. Stifle 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful summary of many of the disputed terms. Arguments about these terms exist within and across many articles. It's good to draw them all together. As the Free Software terms mostly originate with Richard Stallman, they're easily referenced with the FSF or GNU web sites. The Open Source Software terms can be seen on the Open Source Inititive site. Common terms can be compared with google hits. I can't see how stating a neutral term can be POV. —Pengo 08:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, perhaps "PoV" would be bit strong term for this - think of "siding with". The use of "neutral" and "unambiguous" names should be explained better, as in why they are more neutral and unambiguous, who uses that sort of terms, etc. As for naming, the big naming issues, there's already GNU/Linux naming controversy. My problem is not that we shouldn't explore the issues; my problem is, do we really need yet another article for such minor points? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The aritcle is unsubstantiated, poorly framed ("disputed", "FOSS") and duplicates material found elsewhere on Wikipedia (or available freely from the GNU project!). It may be useful, but utility doesn't make it worth residing at Wikipedia. The following (written by the article's primary author I presume) cinches it for me, "This list is a guide and is not definitive". --64.223.117.120 06:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle's comments above. --Hetar 08:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep `'mikka (t) 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Bosniak sentiment[edit]

This AfD seems never to have been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and this page wasn't created properly. I've now completed the listing process. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to a neologism, with no base in the real world. Its content refers to Original Research. It was only created after its creator engaged in an edit war and then lost a second AfD vote on the Serbophobia article, clearly done as an ad hominem to produce an hostile reaction.

Asterion 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. I will not bother to be anything but blunt here: these accusations are ridiculous and reflect nothing more than a personal resentment certain users have against me following previous disagreements. This article was not created in response to the article Serbophobia: An original link to it had been created in mid-January, long before I had gotten involved in the matter. It is not a neologism: it does not refer to any newly created word but is a simple NPOV title that adequately describes a social phenomenon that is very much alive and real in the Balkans today. Futhermore, it is definitely not original research: it does not create primary sources, but is a case of "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources", which, according to wikipeda guidelines, is "strongly encouraged." All the key information in the article is referenced with credible sources (BBC, Human Rights Watch, etc.), and the evidence I have presented and the quality of the work I have done are, I believe, this article's best defense. I resent the allegations made about my supposedly "ad hominem" intent (I had honestly requested User:Dado's assistance because of his calm and rational approach to constructing quality articles on similar subjects, and he has responded positively) as well as accusations that I have engaged in an edit war (On the article in question, I have repeatedly asked the opposing side to discuss matters on the talk page and cite their sources, to no avail). This is a subject that any objective observer will agree has a place on Wikipedia (see precedent of Anti-Japanese sentiment) and shows promise of one day becoming a good article. Should this article be deleted from Wikipedia? With all that I have just said in mind, I think the answer is crystal clear: NO. Live Forever 20:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I apology for describing the creation of the article as an ad hominem. I now doubt this was your intention indeed. Nevertheless, I still find the timing quite odd but do not assume bad faith. You have shown willingness to edit the most controversial parts of the article to minimise POV clashes. Asterion 21:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Anti-Bosniak sentiment is definately a real phenomenon in the Balkans. It is not invented original research, and certainly has documentation in a wide variety of sources spanning not only Bosniak publications, but also the works of neighbouring nations. --Thewanderer 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Whether or not the phenomenon exists is not under scrutiny. The encyclopedic value is. There are many things which exist which are not encyclopedic (Anti-Belgian sentiment). The term itself seems reasonably unused, as google returns a whopping 3 hits. The Minister of War (Peace) 21:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Irrelevent, because the title of the article in question is not a term (like "Polonoophobia") but a neutral title to describe a notable phenomenon. As for its encyclopedic value, I think the existence of social unrest, genocide and terrorism against Bosniaks says enough. Live Forever 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I am Bosniak living in Bosnia. Anti-Bosniak sentiment do exist, end of story. --Mhare 14:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article refers to a neologism, with no base in the real world. Only three mentions in google. This is no place for original research. Asterion 18:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I have reconsidered my vote and I am willing to give the article the benefit of doubt, even if, clearly, it was created for controversial reasons. Nevertheless, it needs a great deal of work to comply with Wikipedia own standards. Regards, Asterion 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral / Very Weak Delete. Asterion 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It exists, as well as "anti-Serbian sentiment" (named as Serbophobia) exists. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Exists and notable in the region. As for Anti-Belgian sentiment, it would be a really intreresting topic if someone can find reputable sources. I've never heard of it, but this may well mean just my ignorance, therefore I would very much like to read about it. `'mikka (t) 18:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another bit of nationalist hysteria, like Serbophobia; unencyclopædic, but like that AfD this one will doubtless end with it being kept, as nationalists who have no idea about the criteria for Wikipedia, but who are determined to keep their little bit of Balkans conflict going will pile in and vote, giving irrelevant "reasons". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Seeing as I'm pretty much single-handedly responsible for the development of the article at this point, I feel like you're basically branding me a "hysterical nationalist". I've taken extra care to make certain that this article adheres to the NPOV policy of wikipedia, and have tried to answer and deal with all constructive criticism in a productive manner. Live Forever 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As valid as Anti-Semitism and, for that matter, Serbophobia. It exists unfortunately. --estavisti 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Mel Etitis; this is balkanscruft, inviting over-inflamed passions from trigger-happy partisans who are all too eager to push one or another ethnic bias. This will probably be kept, of course, but at least we can be assured that the content will devolve to such an unencyclopedic level (as with the ridiculously juvenile article at Serbophobia referenced above which should also be expunged) so as to be mystifying to anyone who is not part of the extremely tiny, internecine debate. Eusebeus 23:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Why do you feel "assured that the content will desolve to such an unenyclopedic level so as to be mystifying to anyone who is not part of the extremely tiny, internecine debate," when I see absolutely no evidence for this in the time that the article has been up (There hasn't even been a debate yet!). You are ignoring the tentative cooperation already being exhibited between users of various ethnic backgrounds, as well as the fact that the article is even now in its embryonic stages of higher quality than Serbophobia. Absolutely nothing bad has happened to this article so far, and I feel like you're shooting it down without even giving it a proper chance. I'd urge you, and others of the same mind, to change your notes to neutral and give this article the opportunity it deserves. Live Forever 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eusebus and Mel Etitis. Sheesh. ProhibitOnions 00:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV, I think. Stifle 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Well, the article references a variety of credible sources, ranging from European Union institutions to the Human Rights Watch, so could you please explain how the article is inherently POV? And if this article is inherently POV, then why are similar articles such as Anti-Japanese sentiment considered perfectly fine (never even being listed for deletion)? Live Forever 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After some consideration , I think it might be an interesting article. I would especially like to see it grow as part of a series, possibly with help of the editors on Serbophobia. Would do the entire encyclopedia a world of good. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how can there be anti-Bosniak sentiment when hardly anyone in the world even knows what "Bosniaks" are? Serbophobia is entirely different because it can be argued that it exists due to many people having a negative view of Serbs after the Serbs made international news throughout much of the 90's because of the Balkan wars. Furthermore, "anti-Bosniak sentiment" returns 2 (two) hits in google, and one of them is from Wikipedia. A paragraph about it in "Bosnian nationalism" might be acceptable, but I don't really see the point of a separate article about it. Besides, the examples of "anti-Bosniak sentiment" given in the article (ie vandalism of mosques, grafiti saying "death to Islam", etc) seem more like examples of Islamophobia than Bosniakophobia. Btw Islamophobia is also being nominated for deletion. Edrigu 15:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yet again, the google search is irrelevent because the name of the article is not a specific term (as is "Serbophobia") but a NPOV title to describe a social phenomenon of encyclopedic value. Also: why does a phenomenon have to be internationally notable to warrant an article on wikipedia? Thousands of perfectly fine topics exist on various subjects that are relatively unknown outside of certain parts of the world. Anti-Bosniak sentiment exists and is quite visible in the West Balkans, and thus deserves a place on wikipedia. Furthermore, your analysis of the examples cited in the article completely misses the point. Religion and ethnicity are closely interwined in the Balkans, and Islamophobic expressions are simply compounded on top of existing ethnic prejudices (as noted in the report for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia). This is why there are many instances of "Islamophobic" expression towards Turks and Albanians in Greece, while the country is simultaneously supportive of Palestine in the middle-eastern conflict. Is it fair to describe such things as mere Islamophobia when they are specifically targeted at one ethnicity? I don't think so. Live Forever 17:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per reasons above. --demicx 19:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is interesting to see some users who have voted for article Serbophobia and who are now changing their standards to delete this article. Article does need some work but it is a keeper. Also per statements above. --Dado 22:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As well as some users (including you) who was against article Serbophobia are for this article. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 05:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the standard is that Serbophobia article has encyclopedic value than this one has it too. --Dado 15:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever, you said that Serbophobia should be deleted as well as that this article should be kept. And you implicitly accuse others for nationalism :)))) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hate to get involved in a side-argument, but I have to point out that there is a BIG difference between "Anti-Serb Sentiment" and "Serbophobia". The very title of the "phobia" article is inherently POV, and if this article was named "Bosniakophobia" instead then I'd be voting to delete it. Live Forever 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have to say, I disagree. I still remember, here in the UK, how when Jill Dando was killed, all the papers were going on about it was "the evil Serbs who did it". There are many other examples in the press. Even today, I still get nasty faces if I say I'm going on holiday to Serbia. In the case of Britain, the so-called Journalism of Attachment, is very much to blame for this "phobia" (not in the clinical sense, of course...) Regards, Asterion 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep --EmirA 18:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neutral title, verifiable content. Mukadderat 22:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These sort of attitudes do exist, and the events described in the article certainly did occur. One more thing- where's the Srebrenica massacre in the article ? Teccen 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral heavily leaning towards Keep Even if it was created as a defence to Serbophobia; so what? All nations are hated by representatives from some nations, including the Bosniak. The only thing that I object is that a total of only 15 Google Search results are presented.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHBRadio[edit]

blatant advertising. doesn't appear notable at all. Sconnie 21:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, after discounting unregistered and new users. Stifle (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sal's Realm of RuneScape[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

Current tally of votes:

  • Keep 3,but only 1 if we do not count people who's only edits are to this page.
  • Delete 5

Delete If you search, or know about it, you'll know fansites like this on RuneScape have always been deleted by afd. This is yet another fansite which doesn't deserve anything more than a link at the bottom of the page. A few months back an article about runehq was deleted. It was done well and didn't read like an advert. Runehq is arguably much better than this webiste (traffic and guides) and it got deleted therefore, I feel this should be deleted as well. Also another reason I feel it should be deleted is that even the moderators of the site think this is not needed. here J.J.Sagnella 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I nuts, or is that actually a fairly decent Alexa ranking? Kuru talk 03:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was going to include more information, like a history of the site, how it started and other information that may be interesting for the site's users to read. It's a fairly popular site and many people use it, and I don't think the Alexa rank alone should determine whether to keep it or not.—This unsigned comment was added by The Rickster (talk • contribs) .
Comment Above user's only edit is to this page. J.J.Sagnella 06:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As well as what The Rickster stated, this article is completely factual. Any parts of the article that may be considered as advertising could be cleaned up to conform to Wikipedia's neutral stance. It should not be seen as any sort of promotion for the site, but merely an accurate representation of pertinent information. Dissentor 06:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete it? Im not really bothered actually.. Why am I here? O_O I must be off now —This unsigned comment was added by 60.231.251.71 (talk • contribs) .
This user's only two edits are to this page. J.J.Sagnella 06:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.J.Sagnella 06:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sagnella, I don't see why you're so interested in seeing that this article gets deleted. Any ulterior motives? Well, I don't think that this article is the same as the previous ones on RuneScape Community and RHQ. RSC and RHQ's articles were stubs that barely had any content in them besides unshameful promotion of their respective websites. This article contains factual information that is potentially useful to many people. If you feel that it's written simply to promote the site, I am sorry to have to say that it is of my opinion that you are mistaken. As proof of that, any links, biased opinions, or whatnot may be cleaned up to comply with Wikipedia's policies. Dissentor 22:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it this way. Sal's Realm is by no means the best RuneScape fansite. Even if it was to be kept, articles about tip.it, runehq, zybez, runevillage and possibly others would have to be created to mkae it equal. That would be a big waste of Wikipedia space. J.J.Sagnella 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, define how you rate a fansite as the best or not. What are you using to judge how good or bad a fansite is? I am not saying that Sal's Realm is the best fansite; however, it seems that you came to the conclusion that Sal's Realm is not the best fansite without any supporting information. If other fansites would have to have their own articles to make it equal, by all means, let them be written, as long as they're not partisan pieces of nothing but how great they are and how much other fansites are worse than their's. And as for that being a waste of Wikipedia space, I'm fairly sure you're not paying monthly server costs or anything of that sort. If you think that this article is a waste of space, please do say so in a more succinct manner and I'll spend some time finding articles that have been allowed that are even more useless than this one.
This brings me nicely on to the key reason as to why this should get deleted. A few months back an article about runehq was deleted. It was done well and didn't read like an advert. Runehq is arguably much better than this webiste (traffic and guides) and it got deleted therefore, I feel this should be deleted as well. Also another reason I feel it should be deleted is that even the moderators of the site think this is not needed. here J.J.Sagnella 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, as a kind suggestion, you should probably do a spell check on your comment before you hit "Save Page". The typos made it more difficult to comprehend what you were trying to say.

Dissentor 20:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? I rush. Sorry if it is hard to read. J.J.Sagnella 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that traffic and guides are what make a fansite better or worse. I believe that it is the community that truly defines the fansite and what it's about. As for RuneHQ's article getting deleted, if I was around for the discussion, I would've most definitely supported its existance. If it is a well-written article, not biased, and completely factual, then I believe that it would be in Wikipedia's best interest to keep it. That's why the deletionist mantra doesn't make any sense to me. Wikipedia wants to grow, then why throw out articles that aren't tabloids in nature, serve a purpose, are of interest to some, and are not harmful/hatred in nature?
Wikipedia wants to grow. But we don't want to have an article on absoloutely anything. Wikipedia has strict guidelines on what makes it and what doesn't. J.J.Sagnella 07:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a closer look, it is not "the moderators", it is "a moderator". On the lowest rung of the ladder, if I may add. The site administrator is well aware of this article and supports its creation and commented in support of its existance as the Rickster, thereby rendering that argument of your's moot.

Dissentor 02:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neoplatonism and Gnosticism[edit]

Article is mostly a table of contents (copyvio?). The rest is a personal essay on a non-notable book. Title plus author gets 147 Google hits, some of which are WP mirrors. 16 on GoogleScholar. 70 on GoogleBooks. Keep in mind if researching the author that User:LoveMonkey (author of nominated article) may have written what you're reading. — goethean ॐ 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both these comment are false. --FloNight talk 02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you cite any of those references? Thanks. -- noosphere 21:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Since I wrote a lot of the re-write of the article, I know it is not a copyright violation. This article was proded by me, then worked on by 3-4 editors. We agreed that it was worthy of keeping. FloNight talk 02:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've never heard of this book. Seems non-notable. Keep if and only if it can be worked into something verifiable. Otherwise, delete. KSchutte 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete The article contains some strong statements ("The book marked a turning point in the discussion on the subject of Neoplatonism"; "The book is considered a cornerstone to dialog between the different scholars in the field of philosophy"). If these claims can be supported by reputable citations — which should not be hard if they are true — the book is clearly notable. Lacking such citations, the article does not establish notability. I must add that the section Current developments appears somewhat speculative and unsupported, possible presenting original research or a particular point of view. LambiamTalk 00:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It could use some revision and a bit of removal of point of view (use of words like "Our", but just because the article needs work is no reason to delete it. Adam Cuerden 19:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, original research. -- noosphere 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Has been reviewed twice in professional peer-reviewed journals of history of philosophy. Lucidish 03:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you provide references to substantiate this assertion? Also, would only two reviews make for a notable book? -- noosphere 21:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article falls into a common trap that a lot of Wiki articles fall into: The Table of Contents approach to writing. (See also Enneads, The Holy Books of Thelema, etc.) Should we have a wiki policy that articles consisting substantially of tables of contents should include a brief description of each chapter/section, ideally written for a non-expert? It'd make most such articles much more informative. A (Vote is already given above) Adam Cuerden 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An editor is in the process of doing this for this article. They are a student, I believe, and works on it as time permits. This article is a work in progress like every other article on Wikipedia. The book is a collection of pieces from a 1980's conference. If the conference occurred today then it would not be an issue. Most 1980's academic conferences are not going to be found online. FloNight talk 13:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right'n. As long as it is being worked on, I can't see any reason for its deletion. And things from the 780's are going to be highly under-represented online anyway, so they're no guide Adam Cuerden 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the book info be removed and a stub be created on the topic of the conflict between NeoPlatonism and Gnosticism. There is significant interest on the talk page regarding the topic, but not the book. I would vote to keep such a stub. — goethean ॐ 21:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if wiki is offering book reviews (this was listed as a topic rather than book review) the article is lacking organization. On the conditional delete comment, I happen to know most of the scholars whose work comprise this book. I wouldn't dispute that this is a turning point, but this is overemphasized (in comparison to the other work in the neoplatonic scholars community). Much work has been done on this topic since 1984. If this article is kept, it only makes sense to review *all* of the ISNS and APS works connecting neoplatonism with other topics (most published by SUNY, more recent works published by University Press of the South), as well as the works lead by John Turner (U Nebraska), Universite Laval, and Society of Biblical Literature on gnosticism. Zeusnoos 20:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article has cost me considerable time and effort and I have been able to have it submitted for peer review by a known member of the International Neoplatonic society. The professor (Professor Moore) has a seat and who is very close to his doctoriate can add a great deal of credibility to wikipedia. Professor Moore has already reviewed the article and stated it was fine. I can forward the email to the admins here if need be. Please tell me why posters on here would rather not discuss these things with me directly. The staff of admins at Wikipedia (who are obviously overwhelmed) seem to be able to find time. Why can not other people. Learning is a process by which one is challenged. Unlike some articles and posters, this article is about the field of study it is so named and this book is the only solidly authoritarian source of the subject. Please post if you guys know any others (pretty please with cherries on top). Unlike some posters who use new age groups to prop up their made up interruption of greek history, words, works and culture. I am doing my best to give the article legitimacy. I believe in wikipedia and I believe that charlatans work can not will not stand up to peer review. I am doing what I can to have the article be about the field of study and to give wikipedia (alittle bit at a time) the type of foundation that states the information is backed up scholars in the respective fields so mentioned in the article. I appreciate all those who have stated that article should stay. I would like to express not only dismay at the disruptive conduct displayed in the request to have the article DELETED rather then reworked, by people who may not have a knowledge of the scholars who work make up the book and conference. Let alone what the book actually states. LoveMonkey 14:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is also to introduce the many scholars (Wallid, Allen, Dillon, Armstrong) and committes (international neoplatonic society) to wikipedia. So that their profiles might also be created. It would be better if people read the works of the middle or later platonic scholars and posted the articles then engage in disruptive behaviour. I have more much much more to learn then I could ever have to teach. LoveMonkey 15:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Adam Cuerden is right but Flonight beat you to the point. Adam Cuerden please help. LoveMonkey 15:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and Texts (Symposium Series (Society of Biblical Literature), No. 12.) (Paperback) by John D. Turner (Editor), Ruth Dorothy Majercik (Editor), 2001. ISBN: 0884140350. Also see individual essays on the topic published from later SBL and ISNS conferences.
On my original statement that the article should be deleted, I will concede that it is an important topic, and should be kept as a topic, but that it should not maintain the format of a book review of one source. As close colleague of Dr. Moore, I do not think he actually looked at the article on wikipedia but a section that you sent him through email. He did not understand the structure and purpose of wiki. We personally talked about this two weeks ago and he never visited this site. I came here partly out of curiosity from our conversations, and was disappointed with the structure of the topic. Zeusnoos 17:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We would welcome and appreciate any further suggestions you might have. I'm changing my vote to neutral, as I need to re-read the article and think on it some more. --DanielCD 19:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suggest that we split the article into Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (book) and Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and move the text of the present article to Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (book). There's a real topic in classical studies here apart from this one conference. — goethean ॐ 19:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. My recent edits have made that option unnecessary. The book now takes up a significant section of the article, but plenty of room is left for other related discussions. An amalgamated article seems the best route to take, since some agents believe that the book was not noteworthy, and so would surely demand the book's article be deleted once the split were to occur. Besides, the material which is there on the conference does address issues which are of distinct and direct significance to the general topic. Lucidish 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Agree with Lucidish. I suggest we develop the already existing article so that it can include the additional information that Zeusnoos has provided and also include the conference that the book covers and be inclusive to current events. And I graciously request the well connected Zeusnoos to contribute. As I request you Goethean to the contribute to the article as well. The better and more researched the subject matter the better wikipedia. I would like to see Zeusnoos and Goethean publically collaborate. As I would be honored to collaborate with someone as was well researched and up to current developements in the fields of Neoplatonicism and Gnosticism as Zeusnoos appears to be. Zeusnoos appears to be an excellent asset to wikipedia. :)
Woah, hold your horses, Charioteer. Gnosticism is not my expertise - I know far less than what can be gleaned from the books cited in the Gnosticism article. You shouldn't volunteer someone else's time. I'm supposed to be writing something else, but I'm here, dilly-dallying instead. I started to clean up the spelling and some of the grammar, but encountered other problems with the article. Will detail below. Zeusnoos 01:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LoveMonkey 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep For the above reasons. Secos5 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to clean up article[edit]

While cleaning, I encountered some problematic statements. One was the claim that the death of Socrates is the reason for the taciturn nature of the Academy. This is conjecture and Socrates was dead long before Plato started the Academy. The more plausible reason is that Plato valued the spoken word rather than the written. He didn't want the dialectic movements to be transfered outside of the context of dialogue with students and codified as doctrine.

Secondly, everything beginning with the paragraph "The Neoplatonic movement (though Plotinus" should be excised unless the link between neoplatonism and gnosticism is worked in somehow. It's off topic.

Thirdly, when you refer to the philsophers of academy (this section is suppose to summarize the conference findings, btw, and does not seem to do so) which incarnation of the Academy do you mean? The Academy during Plato's time and that during Carneades's or Antiochus's times were very, very different in scope and aims.


Zeusnoos 01:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me state-Zeusnoos YOU ARE AWESOME, AWESOME, AWESOME. Thank you. You and Lucidish are of the finest persons. As for your points I concede that there are differences in the academy as Plato probably dispised pedantry. That makes it wrong to make sweeping generalizations like I did. As has been stated my articulation is poor. I apologize. But as it has been said the richness of work lies in collaboration. I am deeply appreciative of the most excellent editing and work you have done. AAAAAAHHH could I get you to take alittle peek at Plotinus Zeusnoos please ::). My contributions there could use just a tiny bit of your excellent touch. LoveMonkey 01:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball (film)[edit]

Delete - Article reads like complete fancruft. After searching IMDB and Google, I found almost no corroborating evidence for the existence of this project, outside of a few fan forums where fans speculated about their dream casts and such. No verification of the actors or crew listed having been officially announced anywhere as being connected to this film. TheRealFennShysa 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  16:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Og[edit]

Non-notable pub/social club performer. Try "Gary Og" -encyclopedia (to eliminiate wp mirrors) - all you get are notices of pub dates, discussion on Celtic F.C. forums etc. Article states "2 best-selling albums". Chart position? Links to "The Exiles" and "The Unity Squad" show dates in local boozers, GAA clubs. Doesn't meet WP:BAND. I've lived in Glasgow all my life and never heard of this character. Camillus (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Proto||type 11:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief[edit]

  • Delete POV article --terrillwhite
  • Delete Article intended solely as POV jab - any useful factual information should be merged into the other relevant articles: the Title itself guarantees a single, particular POV! Any article that ONLY allows critical POV (based on its very title) or ONLY allows supportive POV in the same manner should be deleted. From the outset it assumes by its title to ban edits in support of the topic - only this critical of the topic fit within the article,and therefore can be nothing but POV. --bzehr 18:39, 05 April 2006
  • Delete The article is a POV fork and breaks with WP:OR. Any relevant information should be moved to Charismatic Movement and Pentecostalism.--Jersey Devil 23:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article is so full of POV its almost hilarious. Itake 23:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 00:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork and original research. --Terence Ong 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I am the original creator of the article. Please take time to read the article's discussion page to view the original afd that was done in July 2004 - the vote then was to keep. If you read it you will see that the voters engaged in a very long and detailed discussion. Moreover, I have also noticed that the article is about 20% of the size that it once was and this appears to be entirely due to pov editing. For an example of how detailed the article once was, check out the 10 May 2005 entry. Additionally, I never once used the phrase "critics accuse" or "critics argue" as the current article does. If you examine the history you will see a much fuller, better written, more balanced and more detailed article. --One Salient Oversight 13:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to page X of One Salient Oversight's choosing, but proabably Pentecostal. Or Keep if X is too long already. But article must be treated as a subpage of X. Articles trying to be subpages are not POV forks JeffBurdges 14:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Itake Montco 03:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Controversies about religious movements are contained within articles about the religion itself. See, for example, Scientology, which is arguably more controversial. George Bluth 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to MediaWiki. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimail[edit]

Non-notable vanity. Wikipedia needs not articles about functions in the MediaWiki software. Delete. Off! 21:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. GTBacchus(talk) 09:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT Characters in Family Guy[edit]

Orphaned AfD; the first vote below is the nominator. GTBacchus(talk) 09:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_31&oldid=1116878761"