Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 6

< March 5	March 7 >

Purge server cache

March 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Helstrom (band)

I'm moving this from Prod to AfD because I think the band has at least a case, although not a strong one, but maybe I'm missing something. I wrote this article, but only in the process of researching the real Echo Helstrom, and I neither know nor care anything about the band. But they do have two albums out (albeit at least the first was self-published), they have received good reviews (but not, apparently, in really major mags), and they did do the music for a Netscape ad (wheeee). Basically, if there's anyone from Portland that knows anything about this band? Maybe they are better-known than they appear to be, or something. Herostratus 00:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, as nominator. They really do seem to be on the bubble.Herostratus 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Royboy crashfan 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMG. PJM 01:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other users voting keep. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two albums on Atlantic passes WP:MUSIC. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per major-label release. WTF is with that "Picture not available" thing, though? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Royboycrashfan, meets the criteria set by WP:MUSIC. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes criteria of WP:MUSIC. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Alpha269 14:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make a disambiguous pageJohnRussell 18:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the brink of "delete". ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic Records releases. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:49, 8 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinklets

Delete - The article as written now is either incoherent or at least not written at a level suitable for an introductory treatment of its subject matter. Moreover, it's difficult to see *how* this article *could* be reformed, given the obscurity of its topic (and related verifiability and original research concerns). Pop Secret 00:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, stub with potential. Royboy crashfan 00:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this is just gibberish. Take a look at the talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could be expanded, referred to peer review, etc. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, take a look at the history of the creator, RJBurkhart (talk · contribs). This is pure gibberish, a stream of random, tenuously-connected ideas passed off as a topic, one of several similar "articles" written by this editor. There's no potential for expansion other than more gibberish. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never considered this, and therefore, you may be right. However, for now, my vote is going to remain keep. I believe that there is possible hope for the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a hoax, a parody of business jargon. I suspect the author is just trying to have fun tricking people into thinking that a bunch of gibberish has meaning. Several of the bluelinks either go to redirects or link to articles with no clear connection to the piped link name. The external links that I followed didn't contain the term. Neutral, see below. --Allen 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article does read like a parody of business/computer jargon, but it appears not to be a hoax. See, e.g. [1]. Moreover, the term gets quite a few (seemingly) relevant web hits. On the other hand, it might be neologism/OR. dbtfz^talk 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, yeah, I guess you're right. Plus, if it was a joke, the author probably wouldn't have made a zillion edits to it. And if that paper is indeed real, it's not strictly OR either. I guess I'd better take back my vote, although I still feel like Thinklets is laughing at me. --Allen 03:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thinklets don't laugh; they exhibit Actionable Distilled Jocularity. dbtfz ^talk 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure this is a just a joke. Sentences like "A thinkLet's social capital value proposition may be assessed by its distributed application as either an Actionable Distilled Insight or Reusable Learning Object." sound like something from the Pointy Haired Boss from the Dilbert comic strip. Even if it isn't a joke, it's written like jibberish and has no encyclopedic value (i.e. it doesn't even explain what a "Thinklet" is). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is so full of jargon as to be unredeemable. Flush this turd, and eliminate

its stench from Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure whether this is unredeemable gibberish, or a hoax. I kind of suspect it's a parody, but I'm kind of afraid it's not. Maybe BJAODN it? Fan1967 03:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BJAODN is often thrown around too lightly, but if this gets deleted, I think it would make for a classic BJAODN. --Allen 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to BJAODN. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed.
Keep per Eternal Equinox. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recon0 17:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been watching this article since it was written, and it has only gotten worse. (Well, not entirely - for a while the term "thinklet" was never even defined.) This is apparently one guy's neologism, and the article was created by someone who attended a seminar where it was mentioned. The chance of expanding (yikes) or improving it appear minimal. -Will Beback 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but extreme stubify or mark for complete rewrite. I find that it is impossible to understand gibberish, but I verified that the Hawaii conference listed as a source does exist and did have presentations on this topic in 2004. So I don't think deleting is the answer. However, Wikipedia should aspire to significantly greater readability so we should somehow "send back" the article for a complete rewrite. By the way, I tried to read the first page of that 2004 presentation on thinklets, and while it is less gibberish than our article, I did not end up any wiser. I still have no idea what thinklets are, and hereby retreat licking my wounds from my attempt to sofixit. Martinp 04:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the closing admin: I'm sending this to Article Heaven (or Limbo, or Nirvana, or whatever) and may it find peace over there. "Extreme stubbification" is not an option, given that it's impossible to get anything coherent from this article. Out of respect for serious marketspeakers I won't send thins to BJAODN, though it would certainly fit in there. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:09, 11 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 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri Pandits

Delete -- Article is a poorly-written, non-sourced propaganda piece; a non-demagogic article on this topic already exists at Kashmiri Pandit (singular). Touchstone 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kashmiri Pandit. Royboy crashfan 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above. PJM 01:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-06 08:43Z
Redirect per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nomination. Kashmiri Pandit is a much better article. Jude(talk,contribs) 10:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect They are the same topic, should be same article
Redirect per all above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. utcursch | talk 09:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect DevanJedi 01:51, 9 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. W.marsh 01:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Gilead

This is basically the same as the page for The Handmaid's Tale. Almost all of it is copied word-for-word, so there's no reason to have this page up when it adds nothing new. Slinga 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. Royboy crashfan 00:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful info with and redirect to The Handmaid's Tale. PJM 01:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep and remove from The Handmaid's Tale, where it bloats that article. The Handmaid's Tale should be about The Handmaid's Tale, not the Republic of Gilead. Melchoir 01:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the notability arguments below, but I have a hang-up on principle: AfD is a poor tool for resolving merge/split decisions. On the other hand, if this article were deleted and/or redirected, it would hamper future splits, so I'll unweak myself. Melchoir 06:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable information and then redirect. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nothing worth merging that's not already in A Handmaid's Tale. Fan1967 03:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable addition to Category:Fictional countries. Atwood spun together an interesting world with The Handmaid's Tale and it is a notable novel in Canada. If Middle-Earth gets an article why not this? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-Earth exists across several books and media. There is enough information about it per se to justify a separate article.

Gilead, by contrast, exists in only one book and, once you get past "future USA run by ultra-fundamentalist Christians," there's not a whole hell of a lot more you can say about it. Redirect. Daniel Case 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable fictional country. Capitalistroadster 06:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Capitalistroadster, fictional country of note. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable fictional country. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Content will change over time.Vizjim 12:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If it's part of a book, the content belongs in the article of that book.
Keep per Capitalistroadster. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Better in this context. Honbicot 15:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It can still be listed as a notable fictional country, but it has not existence outside The Handmaid's Tale, so it doesn't need an article outside The Handmaid's Tale, either. --- GWO
Redirect When its the subject of multiple books it may deserve a separate article. Thatcher131 16:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An encyclopedia is for informational articles about the world we live in, not every fictional world created by novelists. Brian G. Crawford 16:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most editors would beg to differ with you, since we have very extensive articles, character profiles, location articles, etc. on numerous fictional works such as Harry Potter, Animorphs and Star Wars, to name a few. Grandmasterka 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known fictional country. JoshuaZ 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough to have its own article apart from the one on the book, its film adaptations, etc. 18:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete this is not needed. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - notable, but a word for word copy is grounds for redirect to the parent. Georgewilliamherbert 07:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As aforestated, we have plenty of fictional articles. Heck, look at the article for Freedonia. This article does have a place on wikipedia, but I suggest that someone make some attempt to make it different from the other article. Siyavash 12:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The country exists in 1 (one) book. It's a fine book, but since there is no information about the world outside that book, there is no need for the separate article about the world. Middle Earth, and, yes, even Freedonia, have references outside their 1 source. This one doesn't. When there is another reference to the Republic of Gilead, or when the Handmaid's Tale article gets too long, RoG can get its own article, not until then. GRuban 16:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalroadster. Ardenn 06:22, 8 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. Textbook example of a good use for WP:PROD. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schmugby

Non-notable to say the least, it's also a biography on how Wikipedia can be used to post useless information. Bladeswin 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Royboy crashfan 00:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT, WP:NOR, WP:HOAX and WP:NOT. Alphax ^τεχ 01:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NFT ("The game "Schmugby" was an idea thought up by a group of friends from Surrey, UK in the summer of 2005.") among others. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. PJM 01:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Not for things made up in school one day. Green Giant 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alphax. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 02:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFT. dbtfz ^talk 03:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT Bucketsofg 05:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all above. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-06 08:43Z
Delete, pick your reason. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFT. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all of the above and as completely non-notable. Jude(talk,contribs) 11:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable. -- Alpha269 14:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "The game 'Schmugby' was an idea thought up by a group of friends from Surrey, UK in the summer of 2005." We need read no more. Daniel Case 14:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Bob 22:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:39, 7 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bojo

Species does not exist. Genus does not exists. Hoax. Joelito 01:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. PJM 01:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Green Giant 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tee hee! Funny hoax. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Allen 01:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, BJAODN unworthy hoax. Royboy crashfan 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the google test. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it's supposed to be funny, I don't get it. dbtfz ^talk 08:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-06 08:43Z
Delete as hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Jude(talk,contribs)
Delete hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha269 (talk • contribs)
Delete as hoax. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:HOAX. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. incog 21:22, 9 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howda hoowah

Original research gamecruft; non-notable with zero hits on Google. I say delete ~~or redirect to Desert Combat~~. Melchoir 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this was 1902, would you delete Wilbur & Orville Wright's new article on a so-called "Flying Machine" because people had never heard of it before? Have some vision. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.209.222 (talk • contribs) .
- Actually, yes, we would. Melchoir 01:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd delete their article, too, huh? You are a sad and broken man. You can have your article deletion. I suspect when you're on your deathbed you'll wish with every grain and granule of your being that during your life you were able to have vision and perspicacity about something greater than yourself. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.209.222 (talk • contribs) .

Delete as OR and gamecruft. Redirect to anywhere would be inappropriate, as there is no verification per Google that this term is commonly used among the game's fanbase; I am willing to change stance on that if verification is provided. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, feel free to purchase a copy of Battlefield 1942, install the Desert Combat mod, join an active server on the Iraqi side. Press the F1 key twice in succession and you will hear Howda Hoowah. It's part of the game, okay? People aren't going to make websites about them, they're Howda Hoowahs for chrissakes, why would they be on Google? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.209.222 (talk • contribs) .

Redirect. Gamecruft unworthy of it's own article. Royboy crashfan 02:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. -- Vary | Talk 04:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, delete per Kinu. (nom) Melchoir 04:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I guarantee you, this is no flying machine -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one vote needed per editor perhaps? Delete V i r tualSteve 10:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kinu. Jude(talk,contribs) 11:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Get this GameCruft outta here Deizio 12:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Alpha269 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Royboycrash. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for all legitimate reasons given above plus to make the point that not everything in the world is encyclopedic. Daniel Case 14:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect would be okay, but it seems like an unlikely search term. --Allen 22:45, 6 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. Mape

NN vanity at best, hoax at worst – Ezeu 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has to be a hoax, no 12X Platinum album is going to lack a page on yahoo music. MadCow257 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear WP:NFT and hoax. "25 Cent"... right. Not even funny, so no BJAODN. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User has also created several related hoax articles, such as P-Unit, Bmac (rapper), and Gmuh. I'm tagging those for PROD, though I wouldn't be surprised if they end up here. Whether any action should be taken against the creator is out of my hands... --Kinu ^t/_c 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Returns no Google hits with the exception of Wikipedia. No album has been certified 12x platinum by the RIAA since Shania Twain's Up! in 2003. As a matter of fact, no album has been certified diamond (10x platinum) since Up! as well. Delete as an obvious hoax. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, BJAODN unworthy hoax. Royboy crashfan 02:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, a very nice try, but it was too encyclopedic-looking to make me laugh. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. It's a pity someone wasted so much time to be so unfunny. dbtfz ^talk 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-06 08:43Z
Delete and do not pass BJAODN. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Waaaaaay too much time on your hands dude. View other existing and future contribs from this guy with extreme prejudice. Deizio 12:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax -- Alpha269 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete hoax. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/above. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:40, 7 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Year

Delete Not encyclopedic SailorfromNH 01:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , or move to Wictionary MadCow257 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SailorfromNH. I don't think it should be moved to Wiktionary, because "unknown year" doesn't have any meaning beyond what you would expect from knowing the words "unknown" and "year". --Allen 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allen. Royboy crashfan 02:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allen. Apparently this article was created in order to have something an entry in 2040s could be linked to. --Metropolitan90 03:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allen. Nicolasdz 08:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is this just another redlink justifier? V i r tualSteve 10:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allen. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Deizio 12:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allen. -- Alpha269 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really doesn't contain much, does it? -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly obvious delete. An unknown person is someone you don't know! Grandmasterka 16:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless dicdef. Though it did remind me of "Mmm... unexplained bacon!" --Kinu ^t/_c 20:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:53, 6 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. Those supporting a merge can slap {{merge}} on the article and thrash this out on the talk. Right now there is no consensus to delete, so no decision has been made. Please work this dispute out on the talk, and please do not equate "no consensus" with "keep". If you must oppose a merge/redirect/whatever, please do not cite the "no consensus" decision alone to back up your case. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three forms of mathematical induction

I have refactored comments from this page to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Three forms of mathematical induction to improve readability and reduce the amount of space people viewing the entire day have to scroll through. Please use the talk page in future for long discussion. This should not be taken as implying those comments are less valuable in any way, and you are urged to read both this and the talk page. Stifle 09:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, shouldn't that be moved to the talk page of the article, instead of the delete discussion? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This redundant article serves no purpose. (1) and (2) are covered by Mathematical induction; (3) is covered by complete induction. These relationships are already explored in detail at Mathematical induction. In 30 months, the article has accumulated as many edits; I attempted to merge it but was reverted. Melchoir 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Melchoir's hostility seems gratuitous; I don't know where it comes from. His attempt to "merge" material into mathematical induction amounted to (1) paraphrasing a fragment of this article in a way that made clear that he understood none of it and didn't care to; and (2) putting it into a randomly chosen place in that article. Michael Hardy 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand why it is necessary to insult me to this degree. I have made nothing but good-faith edits; I understand the articles a little better than not at all, and I make sure that I understand what I'm doing before I do it. You can't possibly think my choice of position was random. And I merged a "fragment" because there is exactly one sentence in this article that can't be found in a more relevant place. Melchoir 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Michael Hardy's hostility seems gratuitous. But what do I know? I'm an anon posting from a shared IP. --150.203.2.85 14:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's also cool having the 3 types right there clean and consisely MadCow257 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Melchoir. --Allen 02:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any original information. Royboy crashfan 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Keep Royboy crashfan 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No clear reason for this topic to have its own article. dbtfz^talk 03:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Or delete, if the content isn't worth preserving. (I share Deville's concerns.) dbtfz ^talk 05:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per nom, as I don't see anything in here to merge. This may be the first example of mathcruft I've seen. How is (2) functionally different from (1)? Whatever your answer is, then please articulate why there should be the explicit case where one has to prove n=1,2 by hand and then start the induction at 2? And etc.? In any case, this article contains absolutely zero mathematical content not contained in other articles. --Deville (Talk) 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you see no difference between (1) and (2), then you're not paying attention. "Why there SHOULD be"? I never said there "SHOULD" be; I said there ARE very many such cases. I suggest if you don't know that, you're simply not a mathematician. Michael Hardy 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, content isn't worth preserving. It's just hairsplitting over the initial step. Maths undergrad that DOES understand the material fully and still sees no point in it.--Mmx1 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no offense to Michael, but this just doesn't strike me as an encyclopedia article. It would be a good sort of observation to include in a textbook, maybe for a discrete math course. --Trovatore 06:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Melchoir. If the article's originator can work up a merge, then please go for it.Vizjim 12:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote. I don't have the expertise to comment on this issue. (BTW, thanks for putting the message on my talk page, I wouldn't have come back here otherwise).Vizjim 09:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comparison of different variations on induction belongs at mathematical induction. This article seems like it might be about using induction for a certain group of problems. If this topic really does deserve an article, it probably needs a better title, and it should at least have an introduction which makes the topic clear. JPD (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. Whatever new content here should be merged and this article deleted. -- Alpha269 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think you can really do that, in general, because of the GFDL. Certainly we wouldn't want to just stick literal text from the article somewhere else and then delete the record of who wrote it. Possibly if the text were paraphrased first we'd be technically OK; I'm really not sure what the rules on that are. --Trovatore 15:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: This is correct. A merge must be followed with a redirect. Stifle 09:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MadCow257. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. The mathematical induction article is totally superior in content, grammar, comprehensibility and every other way imaginable. This article is badly written, and contains no new, or interesting, information. It's hardly surprising the nominator "didn't understand" the new article. It's borderline gibberish. GWO
Delete No material seems salvagable for merger. JoshuaZ 16:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- there is nothing here that isn't covered elsewhere. Reyk 21:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Possible merge if someone is up to the task. No question that mathematical induction is written to a higher standard. I also suggest that Michael find another supporter from the academic math community to back his assertion that the "article does indeed contain information not in that other article". Slowmover 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provided a source can be cited, per Allen. Otherwise, still delete. Appreciate the perceived good faith edits of the author, so I have conditionally changed my vote. Slowmover 23:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is not bad and is understandable, but I am concerned about WP:NOR. I've never heard the term "three forms of mathematical induction". --C S (Talk) 04:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of no value as an independent topic --DV8 2XL 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This page is really about what it itself calls the "second form" of induction, which isn't really dealt with on the mathematical induction page. This is an interesting topic and completely merits Michael Hardy's expanded content, but there's no reason for it to be anything other than a subhead in mathematical induction just as the "first" and "third" forms currently are. —Blotwell 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say that the focus of the article is to present a trichotomy of techniques, and give examples to illustrate the distinctions among them. However, I am not convinced that either the trichotomy, at least as it is presented here, really exists, and I do not think that the examples illustrate anything substantial. Furthermore, as it's been noted, the factual material that's contained here is present in the mathematical induction article, so that the sole original content of the article becomes the uninformative examples. Let me elaborate: sent to talk page by Stifle Ryan Reich 04:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Restructure - the point is actually about a common difficulty in using induction (2). So it could be rewritten into an article about Polya's example (which is quite famous), introducing the stuff on 2nd form to explain the apparent paradox. The discussion of 1 and 3 could be probably merged into the Mathematical induction article. AdamSmithee 08:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~merge~~. Form 2 can be easily be rendered as form 1, by a simple renumbering. Define two sequences of cases: let $case_{A}$ $case_{A}$ the original cases and let $case_{B}(n)=case_{A}(n+1)$ $case_{B}(n)=case_{A}(n+1)$ , be a renumbered sequence. So the form 2 induction for $case_{A}$ $case_{A}$ just becomes a form 1 induction for $case_{B}$ $case_{B}$ , with an extra vaciously true case $case_{B}(0)$ $case_{B}(0)$ . In general induction arguments don't have to start at 1, if you can prove all cases up to m by other means and then prove >m using induction then its just as good an argument. Its a shame we've had to go here, instead of reverting the merge notice, which imediatly led to and afd in retaliation, a discussion on the merge would have been more civil.--Salix alba (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- rename I now think that this article is missnamed. The key points seem to be more about inductive or recirsive arguments relating to (binary) operations. It does not use the normal definition of induction, interms of a sequence of statements, but instead requires extra conditions linking the statement number to the number of operands.--Salix alba (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as the selection of the three forms is WP:OR. (This is an oddity, as I see it. All of the article could be merged into different articles.) My suggestion would be to find a good name for the 2nd form, and keep that as a separate article, merging all the rest into Mathematical induction. Specifically -- forms 1 and 2 are the same type of induction, with the difficulties in different steps, while form 3 is different. They should not all be in the same article without including a number of of still different forms. Furthermore, the triangle inquality miscounts "n". The step that is impossible is 2 to 3, rather than 1 to 2, as the trivial equation is $d\left(x_{1},x_{1}\right)\leq 0$ . (In other words, I agree with AdamSmithee, but feel, in addition, that the selection of items in the article is WP:OR.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge existing text into mathematical induction (if it is placed after the explanation of mathematical induction, the necessary level of marthematical competence may be assumed). But this is a question of ordinary editing. No claim made here justifies deletion. Septentrionalis 16:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Polya's example and perhaps the product rule example into mathematical induction or some article on logical fallacy or erroneous proof. Delete the rest, as it is redundant or too detailed (maybe put into a Wikibook on proof techniques?). This article is too basic to appeal to readers who fully understand induction already. I also agree about the WP:OR problem; I have never seen this classification before, there are no sources, and there is no reason given to single out these three forms of induction from others possible. Joshuardavis 17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The essence of Polya's example is not erroneous proof; the essense is the form of the argument. What is erroneous is there only because Polya wanted to divorce the form from specific cases, and also to set an exercise for students. But Polya's example illustrates the form perfectly. Those who think it's erroneous to say all horses are of the same color are being too literal-minded; sometimes all horses are of the same color. Don't construe that literally. Michael Hardy 21:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge, userfy and potentially move to wikibooks. Article presents an interesting and to me somewhat new perspective on mathematical induction (bear in mind, I have not been an active mathematician for 5 years). This perspective should be integrated into the article on the topic at hand, namely mathematical induction, to the extent appropriate. This will of course involve discussion and debate with the denizens of that article. Beyond this, could become part of a mathematical wikibook of some sort; pending that, should be userfied. Martinp 04:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would be interesting to hear the perspective of active participants in Wikiproject Mathematics, not as much on content or to give them any sort of veto power, but to understand what has worked in the past regarding interesting perspectives on one aspect of an encyclopedic mathematical topic. Heck, I have all sorts of material from old lectures I gave where I presented something mathematical from a slightly iconoclastic angle, but which is not new research. What is the right approach to judge what belongs on Wikipedia? Martinp 04:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks. Wikipedia is not a how-to, and articles need to be comprehensible to people outside a narrow field of competence. Not making any assesment about the article here. Stifle 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This has certainly never been a how-to article in any of its versions. And I think it is comprehensible to all mathematicians, not just to those in any narrow field of competence. Should all Wikipedia articles that are incomprehensible to non-mathematicians get deleted? What is that -- maybe 10% of all Wikipedia articles, and 90% of the ones on mathematics? Michael Hardy 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete The point of this article is completely lost to me, if it even has a point. I don't see anything significant in the distinctions made. If Polya's example is famous it should be merged to the main induction article. -MarSch 13:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete (or maybe merge) Perhaps something in this article belong in Complete induction, but other than that it seems to be a bunch of howto and examples, and gets hung up on the point of whether the base case of an induction is vacuous (which might deserve one sentence in the induction article). Rdore 00:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How in the world does anyone manage to see this as a "how to"?? It skips details precisely because it is NOT a how-to. There is NO mention of whether the base case is vacuous in the examples, but rather only in the case of complete induction, where it explains why the base case is always vacuous. In all three examples, the base case is asserted to be the substantial part--as far from vacuous as you can get. Michael Hardy 03:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Delete. Humans did not evolve from apes. If humans came from apes, why are there still apes? 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Even if you don't think so, the vast majority of scientists disagree with you, and in any case it isn't relevant to whether or not there should be a Wikipedia article on it. JoshuaZ 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This AfD is utter nonsense. siafu 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and stop wasting our time. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- bad faith AfD -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. --Allen 02:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Waste of my time. I can't believe this was even listed. --Jay(Reply) 02:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep JimWae 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ridiculous suggestion - probably a troll - are brand new accounts even permitted to propose this?[reply]
Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. Royboy crashfan 02:14, 6 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. W.marsh 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hesh

Is this a real phenomenon? I've never heard of it, it might be very notable, but I'm skeptical of it. Google turns up a ton of unrelated stuff. Delete without some outside evidence of notability. Grandmasterka 01:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've never heard this word for it, but I think the fashion trend is real. Googling "hesh skateboarders" turns up some relevant stuff. Keep unless someone knows a more common word for this fashion, in which case redirect to that. --Allen 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>Delete. Delete punk culture as well. </sarcasm> Keep, but expand. Royboy crashfan 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Skating jargon. Googling "hesh skating" and "hesh skaters" turns up multiple alternate meanings and many of them are simply someone's name. Certainly much less notable than other skating fashion trends and jargon. Metta Bubble 04:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Allen and it sounds rather likely anyway --Grocer 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup real term/fashion trend, article needs work joshbuddy^talk 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep --Ter e nc e Ong 11:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & cleanup but that's a serious cleanup folks. There should be no hurry to put skating trends or neologisms into WP. It's becoming a bit of a generic skater term, in addition to uses already outlined, a "hesh sesh" is an impromptu skating session where nobody is worried about techical perfection. I'm guessing it gets used in other skater terms too. Deizio 12:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup -- Alpha269 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. We're not here to provide original coverage of emerging slang or culture. Ned Wilbury 14:59, 7 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 User:Xaosflux — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badem

Author took offense at my earlier speedy tag. Band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Delete barring a valid assertion of notability. Grandmasterka 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems speediable, since article doesn't assert notability, but on the other hand the author sort of asserted notability in an edit summary. --Allen 02:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A1/A7. Royboy crashfan 02:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep NSL E _(T+C) at 09:16 UTC (2006-03-06)

Mucky_Pup

Previously speedy-deleted three times, once under CSD A7, the remaining two times without further consideration as G4 (recreation of previously deleted material). At Deletion Review, it was pointed out that the current version of the article asserts notability, rendering CSD A7 currently an invalid reason for deletion. Listing on AfD now; nominator abstains. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if they were self-published, they'd surely have sold WP:MUSIC's 5000 records after seven albums. --Allen 02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC by a longshot. Royboy crashfan 02:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable claim of record label signing. NSL E _(T+C) at 02:54 UTC (2006-03-06)
Keep, a reference, to AllMusic.com, now exists. While it may not be 100% accurate, it lists the discography and various notable facts. JohnBWatt
Keep, notable enough, --kingboyk 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of whether the record label signing is verifiable, what is incredibly verifiable is that a song by this group was chosen by Berke Breathed to represent the Billy and the Boingers group from Bloom County, and that song was published in a major New York Times bestseller that was distributed all over the world. And that is verifiable. MikeWazowski 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is above the bar for notabliity imo. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-06 08:45Z
Keep as per the above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 6 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 User:Cimon avaro — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Price Hurt IV

Blatant POV-pushing. No google results for "Fred Price Hurt IV" or "Fred Price Hurt". Delete. Fightindaman 02:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom, nn -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 02:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack on subject of article. --Allen 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible - case doesn't seem particularly notable. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A6 per Allen. Royboy crashfan 02:53, 6 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 A7. kingboyk 23:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13-14

Delete. The {{prod}} was removed, so next step is AfD. My reason is non-notability, as well as no returns on Google. - CorbinSimpson 02:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 02:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real assertion of notability. Royboy crashfan 02:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio --Grocer 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-06 08:46Z
Delete NN.! V i r tualSteve 10:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BrandNewGangCruft eh? Outrageous. Deizio 12:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above -- Alpha269 14:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was started.... Yesterday? --Bachrach44 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author has been blanking and editing the page against the AfD policy. My guess is that he's trying to undo or delete the page himself (assuming good faith...). I have tried to keep the page's original content up there by reverting his blankings...the community should be able to see what they're agreeing to delete. - CorbinSimpson 20:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that a criterion for speedy delete? See:[2] --Grocer 01:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, doesn't assert importance or notability. --Allen 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:41, 7 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robey Pointer

author of ~~an IRC script~~ Eggdrop, not notable enough. Grocer 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn bio --Grocer 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Royboy crashfan 03:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable author of a program that's really notable within a non-trivial field. His software left a lasting mark on Internet Relay Chat, which many of you use for Wikipedia's day-to-day chat. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, there are 843,000 Google hits[3] for his software. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio -- Alpha269 14:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Eggdrop. Adrian, thats why we have an entry for the software. Eggdrop already covers all the notable details. JoshuaZ 17:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adrian Lamo. I think he is sufficiently notable. Eggdrop was/is huge. Cyde Weys 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep saying "author of an IRC script" is like saying Linus was "author of a minix modification". He was the initial author for a now ubiquitous open source program. For the record, it was written in C (not a scripting language by any means) and it 'supported' tcl scripting. Leorg 01:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (Users 6th edit. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment per my prior delisting, my only vote in this is !=speedy anything. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Eggdrop is certainly notable his bio is not. Anything worthwhile can be merged into Eggdrop. If you asked someone who wrote the linux kernel they will tell you Linus Torvalds. If you ask someone who wrote Emacs they will tell you esr. If you ask someoen who wrote Eggdrop I doubt they would know. I believe your effigy is infact made of dried grass. kotepho 16:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the closing admin: The only notable thing about RP is that he invented Eggdrop. The rest of his bio is not only non-notable but also quite boring. Summarized information about RP should be added to Eggdrop if relevant. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:22, 11 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris krause

Delete 18 year old American philosopher (has an s in his name) who apparently has re-established the Platonic school. Vanity. Bollocks. Prod removed without reason--Porturology 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hilarious vanity by precocious teen. dbtfz ^talk 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it's probably the funniest thing I've seen all day. Worthy of BJAODNing? Cantara 03:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 03:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but maybe BJAODN because it's funny enough. dcandeto 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant vanity, don't BJAODN it. Royboy crashfan 03:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Teenage vanity. Fan1967 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- Ritchy 04:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firstly - I am not Krause - so this can't be considered vanity, perhaps blind admiration at best. Secondly you're all being very condescending and elitist. At no point does the article claim Mr. Krause has "re-established the Platonic school" or any other claims - if you actually read his work all he does is humble himself and does not even refer to himself as a philosopher but rather someone who is just repeating ancient wisdom. Mr. Krause makes no claims of accomplishing anything and all his works are dedicated to his teachers rather than himself, explaining to the reader that any thoughts must be attributed to them and them alone. Anyway, I wouldn't want this stub, which I was going to expand to include commentary on all his key points being in such a elitist environment so delete. Baalhammon 6 March 2006 (UTC)

After reading the above, I'll rephrase my vote: Delete Non-notable philospher. Having a blog does not make you notable. Fan1967 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although Mr. Krause is not published yet does not make his thoughts any less legitimate, nor does his age. Young people have accomplished great things in the past (See: Alexander the Great). Attack the ideas, not the character. I'd like to again stress that I have no personal affiliation to Mr. Krause. What makes a philosopher notable anyway? The common man wouldn't know the name Nietzsche and of course wouldn't know the name Wittgenstein - but these are giants of philosophy. By another logic, Socrates, Epictetus and other Greeks didn't write down or publish their philosophy, and we consider them classical, if not crucial. Although there is a link to a personal blog on Krause's site, there is also academic essays and a philosophical treatise on ethics. Baalhammon 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to only one of your questions, as it's the only one that matters here: What makes a philosopher notable anyway? To put it simply, a notable person is one that many people have heard of. It is not Wikipedia's task to publicize unknown people, but rather document notable people. Krause is not prominent, he is not well-known. The specific guidelines that Wikipedia recommends are at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Fan1967 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Bucketsofg 04:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it'd be mean to BJAODN . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. Sandstein 05:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as embarassing vanity. In any case, "Blind admiration" is as bad a reason to write articles as vanity. Nowhere near as BJAODN worthy as the Bassil Mikdadi vanity/hoax. Deizio 12:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio -- Alpha269 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, vanity. -- Rynne 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to be contrarian. I would like to perform an experiment of the contrary method of discouraging vanity articles: keeping them, locking their content so that the author can't delete them, and publicizing them so widely that the author is embarrassed into never ever doing it again. I doubt that will happen here, but it's worth a try. Reading the article was worth enough of a laugh to warrant something silly here. (note: experiment not proposed policy change for WP as a whole, at least not until test results are in...). Georgewilliamherbert 07:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's cruel. Just goes to show that we will be doing the kind, compassionate thing by deleting this article. : ) dbtfz^talk 07:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Besides being cruel, doesn't a contrarian "keep" vote violate WP:POINT (State your point; don't prove it experimentally)? - Rynne 23:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, editors are free to vote and give rationales however they choose, for whatever reason. Votes like this simply won't be considered in the final tally. Nothing has really been done here - creating, nominating (or encouraging others to do so) or otherwise making significant erroneous changes to pages to make a point (aka disrupting wikipedia) are frowned upon. The tone of this opinion above makes it clear it's a bit of fun and I doubt anybody, least of all Georgewilliamherbert, seriously expects it to take off. Embarassing vanity posters is sometimes essential but you do have to remember WP:BITE and WP:AGF Deizio 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's reasonable, thank you for the clarification. - Rynne 05:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With luck, in five to ten years, he will be eminently worthy to place in Wikipedia. Just not today.Pat Payne 23:06, 9 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The modes

Delete - vanity, non-notable Cantara 03:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another one of those inspiration explanations. That doesn't meet WP:MUSIC standards. Royboy crashfan 03:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. A band that once had the potential to become notable in the 80's, but broke up before they ever did. Fan1967 04:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Reads like a (very) poor man's Behind the Music. dbtfz ^talk 06:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn vantiy. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity -- Alpha269 14:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:42, 7 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boo D. Licious

Hardly notable. Aside from the fact that her name is a play on words from a Destiny Child song, this performer has not made enough movies to be even considered notable and has no other claims to notability to speak of. Thus Delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sufficiently notable. Royboy crashfan 03:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The IMDB link lists a whole bunch of videos she's been in, way more than enough for any normal actor to be notable. It's possible that every one of those videos is such a tiny niche thing that they don't add up to notability, but it seems more likely that this person really is a notable porn actor. --Allen 22:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Porn actors can make a movie a week, so imdb count isn't really the best benchmark, doesn't seem to have won any awards for her eh... "performances". Eivind 00:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As a fine example of early 21 century Reality porn. Garnier 22:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article in question does not assert this alleged fact. Care to cite a verifiable source? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.--Kross ^Talk 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin: Quantity of videos is seldom a measurement for notability when it comes to porn. I mean really. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:27, 11 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RGBGaming

This group is not notable; there are many game review web sites on the Internet. The article does not assert that RGBGaming has done anything important. dcandeto 03:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article seems to be an attempt to promote the site; the creator of the article has twice quickly removed {{nn-bio}} when I've added it. dcandeto 03:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fancruft, Alexa rank of 3,434,551, and 12 unique hits on Google. Royboy crashfan 03:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article states that it was something made up in school. Delete per RoyBoy. --light darkness^(talk) 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this systemic-bias driven, 10-a-penny GameCruft. Deizio 12:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- Alpha269 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Royboycrash --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:51, 6 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral Cotranscendentalism

No google hits for title, appears to be Original Research. Delete. Fightindaman 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Looks like somebody read Emerson and decided to create a religion out of it. The history of stuff he had in there and then blanked makes for amusing reading. Fan1967 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT and WP:NOR -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 04:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bucketsofg 04:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Last time I checked, WP is not for starting cults. dbtfz ^talk 05:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alpha269 14:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Smerdis of Tlön 17:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:52, 6 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CGM Project

Delete. A project which isn't even done, and possibly wouldn't be notable even if it were. This also flagrantly violates the crystal ball policy, and the article itself sucks. --maru (talk) contribs 04:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and pure promotion. Cantara 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Might be speedied. Simply treats wikipedia like a forum post. Metta Bubble 04:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous --Grocer 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Planned project by a group of people named Krystatos, Gorkab, Look That, Lilice, Zaknafein, Tidus San, Mr Bob and Durendal? Non-notable crystal ball. Fan1967 05:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- Alpha269 14:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Someone will need to remove all the links that someone added to other pages to promote this future project. -Quasipalm 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 23:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. K1Bond007 02:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above--Vercalos 04:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhosting service. —A 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This submission is begging for deletion as a multiple violation of policy and guidelines.--DV8 2XL 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE, what is with you all? You don't even take a look to the project and automatically want to suppress it? What's wrong with you all? This is no propaganda, there's another page which list all the movies with CGI and what else? You want to suppress it? You think I will gain something by writing it for Wiki? No! This is a fan project and a school one too! If you go on the listed links, you'll see a video of the presentation, which is in an amphitheatre of an university! And those who think my article is a crap or sucks, it would be VERY NICE to tell me WHY instead of criticizing it! Gorkab

I wish the project luck and I'd love to see it when it is done. However wikipedia is not a "working space." I'd recommend you look at this page: WP:NOT, it goes over what wikipedia is not ment to be used for. Let me know when it is finished and I'll help you make an article about it. —A 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can I modify it to integrate it to the existant article "Timeline of CGI in film and television" ? Gorkab

If there is information missing from that article then by all means add it. However, your project isn't ready for Wikipedia yet, so please keep information about it off of all articles. —A 03:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the closing admin: This article violates so many policies I didn't even know what to say in the delete summary to keep it short. To the creators of the project, I suggest: get your own website, put the development info there, get the thing done, then wait until it becomes famous, and then somebody will undoubtedly write about it in Wikipedia. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:33, 11 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 (apparently). I'm closing it properly now. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirstyn_Isobel_Walker

Delete. Article is a hoax Wraith Daquell 05:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no Google hits. A fictional fictional character, as it were. Sandstein 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hoax character in a fictional country. Fan1967 05:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hollow FictionCruft. Deizio 12:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A definite hoax. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax -- Alpha269 15:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:52, 6 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. Editorial decision taken to redirect; this is not official by any means, so please do not cite this alone as a reason to support or oppose future attempts to alter this article's status. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian immigration

Advertisement, nonsense, or plain unsalvagable. Prod was removed, so it's here. Grocer 03:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Grocer 03:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. There's room for more content on this, but it belongs there. Fan1967 05:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Canada's great! I wouldn't merge, the content is spurious. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or possibly Merge per Fan1967). I dont belive the content is unsalvagable, but it needs a lot of work. Countries various immigration policies are interesting enough to deserve an article, but it must of course be better than this. Henrik 07:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, with no prejudice should a decent article be written. Calwatch 09:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Henrik. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with Fan1967 -- Alpha269 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that this is an official government website. Brian G. Crawford 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in merging this, there's hardly anything there. The Disco King 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Fan1967. There isn't any information actually worth salvaging in a merge. --Bachrach44 19:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I agree there doesn't appear to be any useful info that's not duplicated in Citizenship and Immigration Canada. -- Vary | Talk 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calwatch. Note to Brian Crawford to check before voting (the website is indeed a valid gov't site), and note to Grocer that the content doesn't qualify as "nonsense". Slowmover 22:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Citizenship and Immigration Canada -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 19:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Fan1967. Ardenn 06:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no content worth merging, but the title really should exist as a redirect to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. I'm actually surprised it didn't already. Redirect. Bearcat 19:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Citizenship and Immigration Canada which properly covers everything needed by this article. —GrantNeufeld 03:47, 10 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 with MADtv recurring characters. Flower party■ 01:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Hines

fancruft and would be better suited as a section of the parent article. Dismas|^(talk) 05:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MADtv. Sandstein 05:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MADtv recurring characters per nom. dbtfz ^talk 05:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha269 (talk • contribs)
Merge to MADtv recurring characters per Dbtfz and nom, and cleanup. Шизомби 18:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Johnleemk | Talk 16:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meiji zaka

User:わがまま小皇帝 has been creating articles on Tokyo streets that do not appear to have any particular notability. He has refused to explain why they are supposed to be notable (see discussion here and here, with applicable policies quoted). That's why I nominate all of them for deletion here: Meiji zaka, Tsuna zaka, Shokouzaka and Sanko zaka. -- Sandstein 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Tuna no tebiki zaka, too. Sandstein 05:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alpha269 15:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Brian G. Crawford 16:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless creator can reference his claim that Sanko zaka is an important place in the history of Japan. Googling it gives me only the Internat. Directory of Odonatologists. Can any Japanese speaker help here? Dlyons493 Talk 22:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone's documenting the streets in his neighborhood in Mita -- and not even the most important streets, at that. I actually recognize Tuna no tebiki zaka: the Australian Embassy is on it. There might be some historical import along one of these slopes (one of the local street maps, as I recall, mentions a famous suicide in the vicinity), but until some English-language verifiability comes out, delete. --Calton | Talk 03:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly, these slopes of Tokyo are not as famous as the Seven hills of Rome, but that's no reason to delete them. Move, of course, to titles with the Wikipedia Hepburn spellings. Fg2 10:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you mean that we should have articles on every road, slope, street, alleyway etc. in the world? If not, what notability criteria would you apply? Sandstein 11:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize Wikipedia had a relevant notability criterion. If you could provide a link to it, it might merit a change in my vote. Fg2 03:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try here: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Random information on random slopes in a city is pointless: these articles taught me nothing and I used to work in that neighborhood. --Calton | Talk 04:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not convincing, but having thought some more about this, I suppose merging all the nominated articles into a new "Neighborhoods in Shirokane" wouldn't be a bad idea, or merging into Shirokane to make a substantial article out of a collection of small ones. Fg2 01:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, redirect Meiji-zaka to Shirokane, merge what's necessary. I was going to vote keep, but I checked JA and there is actually no article there either (their article is on Shirokane, and the slope is a feature). The pictures to these -saka in JA actually link to the English articles, so it seems like there is no great need for these articles in JA either. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 01:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently my edit yesterday didn't come through. Tsuna zaka makes legitimate reference to notability, and it has it's own article on JA Wiki. It should NOT be included on this AfD as the other 2 make no claims of notability. I now vote keep for the sake of Tsuna zaka. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 05:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I can't read Japanese, but the English version of Tsuna zaka makes no substantial claims to notability. It talks about the origin of the name, which is that of an ogre-slaying samurai, but that makes the samurai (slightly) notable, not the street. Or is every place named for a notable person automatically notable, too? Sandstein 05:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English version doesn't explain it very well. The ogre-slaying samurai is considered to have been born in the area of Tsuna zaka, which is why, I assume, the article was deemed worthy for JA. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 05:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then why not correct the English article accordingly? I still won't consider the street notable until the samurai himself has a stub showing why he's notable, though... Sandstein 11:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC) My bad, he has an article. OK, no vote on Tsuna zaka, if y'all consider it notable for the sake of this samurai. Sandstein 11:52, 10 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; editorial decision taken to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Information Clearinghouse

Delete: This page is nothing but a description of a site on the web and an external link. The site does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:WEB, and users would be better served if there were simply a link to the site from the Ada Prgramming language article, rather than a link to our own summary of the site. This is my first time suggesting an article for deletion, so I would appreciate it if senior Wikipedians would take the time vote, even if this request seems uncontroversial. Joebolte 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This website may be prominent enough to serve as a source for the Ada programming language article, but it doesn't warrant its own page. Bobby1011 06:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 18:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ada programming language if it isn't already there. Haikupoet 02:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge with Ada programming language and delete. -- Krash (Talk) 14:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e athphoenix ʕ 05:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I already see a link to this site in Ada programming language (the .org and .com domains appear to be the same web site). Should this article still be redirected to Ada programming language, or can it be deleted? --D e athphoenix ʕ 05:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the info's already there, just Redirect Fan1967 05:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with Deathphoenix. -- Alpha269 15:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curps (talk • contribs) .

Myst:_Adventures_in_the_Dungeon

This is a NONEXISTANT Myst game... and therefore should be removed. GermanShepherd 05:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think (though I'm not sure) that this is what Wikipedia calls patent nonsense. Certainly no such game exists, the entire article (and related edits made on other Myst pages) is fictitious.

Delete per nom joshbuddy^talk 06:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not patent nonsense, but it's a hoax and should be deleted -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- hoax indeed, and a rather childish one.Cactus Wren 07:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lame attempt at a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax -- Alpha269 15:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no Myst VI. Grandmasterka 16:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fictitious. ComputerSherpa 16:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax JohnRussell 18:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And which criteria for speedy deletion are you invoking? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Make that Speedy, but thanks for the laugh. How bizarre. -- Vary | Talk 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but it was a good laugh indeed!!! ~~
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete and utter fabrication. The MYST series ended with MYST V.
Speedy Delete hoax MystRivenExile 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned beforehand, plus taking a look at the authors user page might give you an idea of whats going on. "Hello, my name is Hijoli Cribi!. I like to vandalize the Myst Wikipedia pages." Foo 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Foo[reply]
Delete. I think this article is meant to be funny, but I don't think it is. And even if it would be, it's about a game that does not exist... --Marein 10:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (*waves at Foo*)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curps (talk • contribs) .

Ages_of_Myst:_Adventures_in_the_Dungeon

A list of Ages for an NONEXISTANT Myst game... and should therefore be deleted. GermanShepherd 06:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just like its parent article, this article is entirely fictitious. Delete it, please.

Delete per nom joshbuddy^talk 06:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not patent nonsense, but it's a hoax and should be deleted -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a hoax indeed, and a rather childish one.Cactus Wren 07:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - again, no Myst VI. Grandmasterka 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely fictitious.
~~Delete~~ Make that Speedy for this, too. Weirdness. -- Vary | Talk 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete and utter fabrication. The MYST series ended with MYST V. And, honestly - Akakkkakakakakakaka<snip>? Cyan would be mortified!
Speedy Delete hoax MystRivenExile 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And which criteria for speedy deletion are you invoking? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:45, 7 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, possible speedy. kingboyk 00:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chewbabyte

No google results for this article - may be a speedy delete candidate as patent nonsense. Either way, it doesn't measure up to Wikipedia standards... I cast my vote to Delete --Viridian || (Talk) 06:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Invented word, and not even a clever one. Fan1967 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Under which criteria for speedy deletion? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most likely under "patent nonsense" (CSD G1) -- I had considered listing it as a speedy candidate under that criteria, but decided to err on the side of caution and list it here instead. --Viridian || (Talk) 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, should have specified. I think Viridan's right to label it as Patent nonsense. Fan1967 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think it's Patent nonsense - it's got things like subject-verb agreement, and as a whole it does make sense while being completely unencyclopedic. Though if you were to tag it {{db-nonsense}} and it got deleted, I wouldn't shed any tears. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if it's not Patent nonsense, it's still wrong. I've added an Accuracy tag on the page. Fan1967 06:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "derived from a chat I had with my friend". I don't think I need to say where I stand on this. -- Saberwyn 09:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. I won gold in Athens for sticking my foot up my own ass might be chock-full of verb-subject agreement but it would also be patent nonsense. Deizio 12:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. -- Alpha269 15:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsense --light darkness^(talk) 20:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:54, 6 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 ridiculous made-up neologism. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endopanerium

Delete. neologism without any evidence of widespread use. Prod removed without reason--Porturology 06:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Is it sad that I've got that whole phrase memorized? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete invented neologism joshbuddy^talk 06:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete protologism, A proposed name Fan1967 06:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Alpha269 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:54, 6 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; editorial decision taken to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affric Lodge

Although described as a village in the article, it is actually just an old hunting lodge turned into a holiday cottage at grid reference NH185225 JBellis 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - although I believe it is AffricK Lodge, and should maybe redirect to Glen Affrick. --MacRusgail 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Glen Affric (which is the correct spelling - see that article or the map link JBellis provided). It is just a fairly unextraordinary hunting lodge, so their's not much that can be said about it. --Vclaw 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e athphoenix ʕ 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per Vclaw. -- Alpha269 15:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For goodness sake, it's one sentence! Get rid of it. Brian G. Crawford 16:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:54, 6 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 04:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Ruthless Boys

Delete. It appears to be a vanity page of a street gang and, at the very least, Original Research WilliamThweatt 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I like that they point out how very not a joke they are. Because Wikipedia is totally hardcore, as we all know. Cantara 06:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup - the gang does get a number of credible google hits, but this article is horribly written -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup as per Thesquire. The article is poorly-written but the phenomenon of street gangs is notable and this appears to be one such notable gang. (aeropagitica) 07:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. Absolutely hilarious. I can't believe this is real. Still, the gang doesn't seem all that notable--not clear that it merits its own article. dbtfz^talk 07:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't resist BJAODNing this. Hope the ORBs don't beat me up. dbtfz^talk 07:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry we got your back.
- Changing vote: Merge to newly created Hmong gangs. dbtfz ^talk 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep unfortunately. Their apparent main rivals Masters of Destruction also have a page. I don't think these sorts of things are especially notable but we tend to apply media coverage criteria and street gangs attract media coverage much more readily than their scope might suggest. MLA 10:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masters of Destruction - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 13:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per MLA. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on media reports that turn up on Google. Edgar181 12:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this article doesn't have refences when this afd closes a rouge admin *cough* like me *cough* might delete it. When recomending "keep" and citing sources located elsewhere, unless you actually cite those sources you're not providing evidence, you're stating opinion.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 13:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little bit of cleaning up, including the most obvious source.Vizjim 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notwithstanding the opinion of Brenneman, there is extensive news coverage of this gang dating back to the early 90s and they do have an established presence in various states inclusing NC, CA and WI among others. If every serial killer qualifies for an article, based largely on the news coverage surrounding their crimes, why not gangs? They collectively kill a lot of people and are frequently in the news. They also have a far greater impact within defined ethnic communities.-- JJay 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point he's trying to make is that it is no use running around yelling "we have sources, we have sources!" if 1) you don't show us discussing the deletion what they are, and 2) if you don't show future readers of the article what they are. Slapping weblinks to one or more prime examples of these sources, on the other hand, is the metaphorical Good Thing. -- Saberwyn 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could do that. Of course, so could Brenneman. In fact, so could anyone who takes a gander at the top of the page where it says "credible google hits", which is a link to numerous articles discussing this gang. Those links just representing a small proportion of the news coverage. -- JJay 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. So sayeth one of the most important principles on which Wikipedia is founded. If you want this kept, you do the work. Period. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't mean to imply that you might want to keep something. Thanks again for the helpful link regarding the foundations and all that. Should I show you a link to IAR or can you find your own way? -- JJay 02:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Create Hmong gangs, merge and redirect this and Masters of Destruction. See the MoD AfD for more on this thrilling debate... Deizio 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to suggest the same thing. If the consensus is that the information in these articles is needed here, this seems the best, most concise, solution.--WilliamThweatt 23:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmong gangs is live, so be bold Deizio 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect does it for me.Vizjim 09:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn gangcruft. Eusebeus 12:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything not already there to Hmong gangs and redirect. Angr/talk 15:38, 8 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.