Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 20

< May 19	May 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

May 20

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:30 UTC (2006-05-25)

Religion of Peace

User:Raphael1 created an AfD that linked to an old AfD discussion. Fixing the mix-up. Andjam 04:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Raphael1 previously tried PRODing it with the rationale "NOT a soapbox, and the terms sardonic usage is not notable (esp. outside the U.S.)". Andjam 04:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'd just like to note, that the article currently has only two sentences, which are both unsourced. Raphael1 02:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reyk _YO! 05:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Phrase has been used by a variety of notable people who have a variety of uses for the phrase, therefore not blogcruft as was claimed in the previous AfD discussion. Andjam 05:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep StuartH 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More notable than its 1,890,000 google hits are its 285 google Scholar hits. They all appear to be relevant, and quite a few of them could be used as sources for the article. Jude (talk,email) 11:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Most, if not all, of the Google scholar hits deal with the question "Is Islam a religion of peace?" None of hits seemed to deal with the phrase as a sardonic neologism. Ted 07:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've got 2,990,000 google hits on the phrase "military presence" (i.e. The White House stated "Any military presence, should it be necessary, will be temporary and intended to promote security and elimination of weapons of mass destruction." at the Atlantic Summit on March 16, 2003 [1]) and has 11,500 google Scholar hits. Anyway there is no article on "military presence" and IMHO no such article should be created. Raphael1 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? 1652186 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Don't see this as blogcruft. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 18:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just an adjective being applied to Islam, it isn't a 'thing' or a term to merit an article. Perhaps a mention in the Islam page? --Doc ^ask? 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --Alphachimp ^talk 19:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jude. Widely used as a slur in the blogosphere. Definitely should be discussed here. -- JJay 19:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I undeleted the old article and it was just a slam; this one is sourced and reasonable. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please put it somewhere in a sandbox or in user space. I'd like to see the differences. Raphael1 20:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jude. Peter G Werner 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jude & Andjam. --Randy 20:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (or merge and redirect) per Doc. Keep I've become convinced of the notability of the phrase; Raphael adduces another notable phrase for which we'd all agree an article is not appropriate, but the two are distinct inasmuch military presence could never be more than dicdef (or, in any case, could simply be explicative as to the use of the phrase) whilst the locution here is notable for certain connotations and in view of its tropish currency. A merge might be in order (to Criticisms of Islam, most probably), but I think the unique history of the term and the dueling meanings ascribed to it would better be described in a stand-alone article. Joe 23:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not necessarily true, that military presence only qualifies as dicdef. There's a lot of material one could write about different kinds of military presence (military presence in the home country, military presence in a war, military presence in occupation. Examples like Syrian military presence in Lebanon, US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.) The same applies to the phrase "go to war" (9,980,000 google hits): "Well, I hope we don't have to go to war, but if we go to war, we will disarm Iraq." GW Bush on the March 6, 2003 [2]. ~~Or what about "military action" (9,750,000 google hits)? ("Military action was now seen as inevitable." Sir Richard Dearlove on July 23, 2002 [3])~~ Raphael1 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's in use, it's verifiable, fine. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a stupid term, but in use. Lankiveil 23:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If its mainly just used a slur by idiots on blogs, it's not encyclopedic and should not be included in WP Bwithh 03:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bwithh Ted 06:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOR, ad for a website, no evidence that this term has any currency. JFW | T@lk 09:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. 1652186 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'd just like to note, that the article currently has more than two sentences, which are all referenced. 1652186 17:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your third reference violates Wikipedia:External links, therefore the second sentence is still unsourced. Raphael1 18:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable phrase Cyde↔Weys 18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Raphael1 and Bwithh. Google cannot be used as a tool of justification. It is simply because the fact that many of the search results use the phrase 'religion of peace' by its real meaning and many other times for other religions. Not ensyclopedic. Resid Gulerdem 06:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV tool. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable phrase in current politics. - CNichols 19:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable recent mediaspeak.  JEREMY 09:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty notable alright. Couldn't the last reference needed thing simple have thereligionofpeace.com listed as a ref? They are critics after all, and making fun of the moniker. Homestarmy 03:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Daniel Ayalon. RasputinAXP c 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Ayalon

She is the wife of the ambassador in DC of a small country, Israel (7 million people). The article contains mostly gossip about bad relations between Mrs. Ayalon and Embassy/personal staff referenced by one single article in an Israeli newspaper. Nothing noteworthy for an encyclopedia, only for a tabloid.

I would like to add that for Israel the notable spouses have so far been only spouses of presidents and of prime ministers. Mrs. Ayalon is much less than that. I stumbled into this article several times because I try to clean up the Israeli people root. The whereabouts of the Ayalon family seems to have been the interest of a sole contributor. gidonb 21:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. gidonb 21:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, biography of a nn individual Lankiveil 23:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Daniel Ayalon. There should be something about the ambassador's wife. The "gossip" is from a verifiable source. Israel may be small, but it's still a country, and, for the world in general and the US in particular, a rather important one.Tyrenius 00:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One phrase about the ambassador's spouse and one phrase about a media report on her bad relations with the staff with the ref of this article is no problem. I think, however, that Mr. Ayalon's article should also not be focused on this largely anonymous report about his wife in a mediocre newspaper. gidonb 02:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge with Daniel Ayalon. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete what little is worthwhile into Daniel Ayalon. Ted 07:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just as a FYI, "Merge and Delete" is not a valid option. Whenever any content is merged, we need to convert the merged page to a redirect in order to preserve the chain of contribution. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge I agree that important info about her belongs with Daniel Ayalon. --Dakart 09:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Peta 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Daniel Ayalon. --Starionwolf 06:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Daniel Ayalon.--Nick Y. 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki RasputinAXP c 13:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranga (slang)

article has as sources Urban Dictionary (user submitted), Slangsite.com (not a credible source) and one other which didn't work for me last I tried it. A google search is inconclusive as it interferes with some indian word that is very common. A more narrow search of "ranga red" (no quotes) gave nearly no relavent hits other than the urban dictionary one. WP:NFT ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete From what I've been searching / looking at, I'm pretty sure this is a real term... pretty sure. Obviously, assuming it is, this article is nothing more than a dicdef. -- Kicking222 02:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, dictdef and WP:NFT. Kimchi.sg 02:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary and Delete here. This is a dicdef, and its apparent notability is all that's keeping me from advocating a speedy delete, due to the way some people are acting on its talk page. --^{speak to}gadren 02:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary definite dicdef. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 02:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary I think it would certainly fit in there. Bill (who is cool!) 03:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, dicdef. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki – as dictionary definition, then delete – Gurch 13:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - as a dictionary definition - as the extended version (which was all true just didnt have sources) was editted, i guess this is the only compromise without having another flame war...adon 07:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - adon is right <snipped for civility> - mitch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.192.226 (talk • contribs)
Delete from Wikipedia, move to Wiktionary if and only if someone can provide evidence of its validity. Urbandictionary is not evidence. --Raeven0 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If i may draw everyones attention here: http://www.abc.net.au/wordmap/ that website has a good definition of the word ranga and is not user contributed. It is the website for an australian tv channel. Youll have to navigate to the page with ranga on it because its all in flash or java or something. I think that qualifies for a wiktionary entry at the very least. adon 08:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Contrary to your assurance, that site is user-contributed, as evidenced by "Add your regionalism" on the home page and the entire "Add a word" process from the left toolbar. Furthermore, the ranga page lists Perth as the only region of Australia ever to have housed the term. I invoke Attestation and WP:NN. --Raeven0 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - My bad. If only any of you were from australia... adon 08:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are actually a lot of Australians on Wikipedia. ~MDD 46 96 12:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Probably but none of them seem to be here! adon 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This Australian has never heard, let alone used, the term. I don't pay much attention to Wiktionary, so it's entirely possible they would accept an entry on this, ahem, word ... but it certainly has no place on Wikipedia. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:33 UTC (2006-05-25)

Daniel Wultz

Unencyclopedic and very unnecessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ampersand777 (talk • contribs)

Comment User:Ampersand777 also left this on Talk:Daniel Wultz -Whomp 02:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attended school with Daniel, and, while his death was tragic, this article is unencyclopedic. It may be a good idea to create an April 17 suicide bombing article, but an entire article on Daniel is unnecessary.Amp 02:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just as we don't have articles on each 9/11 victim, we shouldn't have one for someone whose only claim to notability is that he was an American caught in the Israel-Palestinian line of fire at the wrong time. Kimchi.sg 02:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. Just as Kimchi said above, we don't have an article for every 9-11 victim. Touching, though. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 03:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joe 04:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Rockpocket (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with the above. --Kristjan Wager 11:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the only thing encyclopedic about him is the way he died. It might be worthwhile if someone explained to the user who created the article the reason why it is being deleted. Andjam 11:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While we may not be able to feature this article, we offer our condolences to family and friends for Daniel's tragic death this week. Tyrenius 13:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with Amp. Although it's very sad that he died, wikipedia is not an obit column. An article about the bombing would be better. --Alphachimp ^talk 19:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sad, but not encyclopædic. Lankiveil 23:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. VegaDark 00:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His murderer has a page - why can't he? User:XMan 14:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.138.243 (talk • contribs) ("signed" using a non-existent user's signature with incorrect timestamp)[reply]
Don't delete - Daniel was part of a speech prsented by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to the entire Congress. He spoke of the number of children who continue to be vicitims of terrorism. Daniel was mentioned at length and Congress was very moved by this. (ayahc) Ayahc

Have you got references for this such as newspaper reports? Sign your comments with 4 tildes ~ Tyrenius 17:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:35 UTC (2006-05-25)

Sanjay Rath

Indian astrologer who falls just short of WP:BIO standards. According to the article, he has published 6 books, but Google searches for "Crux of Vedic Astrology" [4] and "Vedic Remedies in Astrology" [5] turn up 101 and 76 hits respectively, which suggest that his books might not be that popular and fall short of the audience of 5,000 needed for him to be considered notable. Weak delete. Kimchi.sg 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Leaning to delete. This is a real person, and can be edited so it will follow WP:BIO. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 02:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on having published six books, which seems notable enough of an achievement. Will recondsider vote if it can be shown the books are fake, published by a vanity press, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, books published by Ratna Sagar, an award winnning, non-vanity Indian press. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, asserts notability. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.A notable bio.Bharatveer 06:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Barely notable, but appears to squeeze through policy for authors. Rockpocket (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have edited the article for unreferenced POV. Tyrenius 15:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, marginally notable; the cleanup by Mr. Tyrenius really helps the article not come off as promotional. Good nomination, though. Kuru ^talk 16:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable bio. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, doesn't seem all that notable for me, given the Google results. Lankiveil 23:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Serious question: what's your expectation for Google results for an Indian author of nonfiction? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete as per Lankiveil. Since English is very widely spoken and written in India, and is the second official language after Hindi, the expectation should be quite high. Bwithh 03:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability issues. Anwar 04:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:38 UTC (2006-05-25)

AutoLink 2.5

I can't find any reference to an AutoLink program related to IM. This doesn't seem notable, but I'm not sure. ^{speak to}gadren 02:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this may be verifiable, though non notable. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 02:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable software, even if it's verifiable. -- Kicking222 03:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn software. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Couldn't find verifiable info anywhere. Amaas120 04:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Notability (software) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity programming ad, non notable. Rockpocket (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 09:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not notable, and since it's obsolete (can't be downloaded), it won't become so. --Kristjan Wager 11:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were notable, it should have got Ghits.--Jusjih 14:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it wasn't notable when it was around, and you can't even download it anymore. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:39 UTC (2006-05-25)

Choc Shit Lovers

This was proposed for deletion, and I contest deletion. This is a real series of porn films. It may not be to everyone's liking, but that's no reason to delete it. I like Vike 03:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability whatsoever. Googling the term brings up only 5 total hits, and 3 of those are MySpace. People on Google user groups do not count as "reliable" independent reviewers. Just because the films are real does not mean they inherently deserve a place on Wikipedia (see also: some indie films, almost all student films, many porn films). As far as your comment on the article's talk page, Vike (and this is not to be argumentative, only to present another opinion), you're absolutely correct: "Notability is subjective and it isn't an official deletion policy." With that said, it's obvious that these films are not notable. In addition, while there is no official deletion policy for notability, lacking it is grounds for deletion. Otherwise, I could create an article with the content "I have ten fingers," and then argue that it should stay on WP because it's true. I respect the effort you put into your articles (and for bringing the pages to AfD as opposed to just taking down a deletion tag, which the vast majority of editors would), but I don't feel this one needs to exist. -- Kicking222 03:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be a hoax, but even if 100% true wouldn't be notable enough for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kicking222's excellent argument. Reyk _YO! 05:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 05:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kicking222. Kudos for bringing it here though. Rockpocket (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.--Jusjih 14:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Scat pornography to start this article. Erm, yuc. Tyrenius 15:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN --Alphachimp ^talk 19:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if we had an article for every shitty porno movie... (geddit? GEDDIT?) Lankiveil 23:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:41 UTC (2006-05-25)

Hb2a.gif

This was proposed for deletion, and I contest. This was a notable internet meme ten to fifteen years ago. It easily meets the criteria for meme notability at WP:MEMES. I like Vike 03:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As CClio33 said, "a single picture viewed only by people on a specific website is an example of a lack of notability." --^{speak to}gadren 03:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Garden. Naconkantari 03:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. -- Kicking222 03:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gets just 3 Google hits, 1 irrelevant, 2 mirrors of a post called "Welcome to alt.tasteless! (monthly posting)". Even a Google Groups search produces just 35 unique hits, suggesting that this wasn't all that popular even on usenet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 04:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Utterly non-notable internet meme. Reyk _YO! 05:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Tangot a ngo 07:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (and will never eat corn again) Rockpocket (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 09:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low Ghits cannot be notable.--Jusjih 14:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN (and just foul...come on) --Alphachimp ^talk 19:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete NSL E _(T+C) at 04:42 UTC (2006-05-25)

Hilway

Not notable. I have found no references to this writer's group outside of this article, and the group's website is a 404. ^{speak to}gadren 03:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly referenced. Verifiability and notability issues. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:V. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 05:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:V. Rockpocket (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 903 Ghits.--Jusjih 14:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn Lankiveil 23:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect both as completed merges. Deleting would destroy the page history. Kusma (討論) 04:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Malkovich

This article has been proposed for speedy deletion because the content has been merged with the Metroid Fusion article under the heading Adam Malkovich. Also, it is a stub and there is not enough information for it to deserve its own article.

Then let's Speedy Delete it since the merge is finished. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation of Final Fantasy VII

This article has been proposed for speedy deletion because the content has been merged the the Final Fantasy VII article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 discounting anonymous users. A keep/merge vote and a delete/merge vote can also be read as merge votes to help establish consensus. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microchip mind control

Not noteworthy conspiracy theory proposed by a Finnish lady. Tagged "prod", prod removed by anon, stating "This is an awesome article .... and she references themes that are both new and old to conspiracy theories ... ." Now it's here. The proponent's name gives some 500 ghits on conspicary theorists' websites. Dr Zak 03:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, as the article seems more a bio than on a specific theory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- She already has an article and her theories are mentioned there. Dr Zak 03:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move - agree that this information should be incorporated with Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde article, as it provides much more detail concerning her and her conspiracy theories. She is a well-known theorist among those who believe in UFO's, extraterrestrial visitors, and government-sponsored behavioral control experiments and, as such, definitely merits inclusion in Wikipedia, despite zak's naive claims otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.66 (talk • contribs) .
Finnish lady description by dr zak is, like most of his comments, misleading: she is a medical doctor and a former "a Provincial medical officer." According to her Wikipedia article, she "has written UFO related books, which have been published inside and outside Finland. She has taken part in numerous UFO conferences and spoken openly about the hiding of the UFO evidence and other conspiracy theories" [6]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.66 (talk • contribs) .
Move per above and redirect if needed. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 04:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRUFT. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete conspiracycruft, any relevant info could be put on her article.--Jersey Devil 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to theorist's article, per Andrew Lenahan. Rockpocket (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move - makes an excellent expansion of "Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde" article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.66 (talk • contribs) , likely User:Gpscholar himself
Keep or Move - either keep as is or move -- good addition to conspiracy theory articles Gpscholar 11:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Gpscholar[reply]
Merge into Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde. A smaller number of 'joke' articles, please. Shenme 20:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Move if necessary. Lankiveil 23:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Move/Merge to Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde. - CNichols 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pertinent and concise; well documented and precise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.221.35 (talk • contribs) Likely this is User:Gpscholar

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:43 UTC (2006-05-25)

Pornographic vandalism

Tagged "prod", prod removed by anon. Now here. A collection of trivia, really. Dr Zak 03:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~Kylu (u|t) 04:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. DS 04:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retian - good article by wikipedia standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.71 (talk • contribs)
- Comment The above user twice removed the prod tags without comment, and once removed the AfD tag without comment. This IP address has also been blocked eleven times, including six hours ago. -- Kicking222 04:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Worthless Comment I just had to say, lol. --Dakart 09:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 04:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 04:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 05:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information, nor is it a dumping ground for wild speculation. Reyk _YO! 05:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I expected this to be about Wikipedia vandals adding pictures of genitalia everywhere. Anyway, that Little Mermaid thing has always been fiction. This is nearly a personal essay. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I understand where the author was going with this. He just didn't get there. Aguerriero (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kristjan Wager 11:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 17 Ghits.--Jusjih 14:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Alphachimp ^talk 19:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure that the world will be able to cope with the loss of this article. Lankiveil 23:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't need a wikipedia page dedicated to it. --Dakart 09:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Paddles 15:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia as per nom Bacmac 17:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. Shanel ^§ 04:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fart Personality Test

Unencyclopedic, possible copyvio. Wikipedia is not a joke book, and this joke is not sufficiently unusal to merit inclusion. Only one link.

Never mind, someone speedied it apparently. --EngineerScotty 03:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:43 UTC (2006-05-25)

List of awards in Battlefield 2

Wikipedia is not a gamer's guide. This one is pretty much a guide, including some "tips" on how to get these awards. Metros232 04:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE all gamecruft. And believe me, this is gamecruft. -- Kicking222 04:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gamecruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the closing admin. When you close this, please look at this contributions list from Jawful. Jawful uploaded about 50 images of badges from the game. They were included in the for several months but were removed a week or so ago it appears (which makes sense, fair use images shouldn't be used to "beautify" a page like he had it. So can someone take the time to delete these? They're orphaned and I doubt they'll be able to be used anywhere productive. Metros232 04:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- gamecruft of the cruftiest kind. Reyk _YO! 05:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 13:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though I like it, it is definetly gamecruft --Alphachimp ^talk 19:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Remove the "tips" and keep. BF2 is one of the largest and most popular games now, and the awards are a huge part of it ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Reyk. Joe 20:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Lankiveil 23:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yikes. This is nothing but a game guide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not part of an encylopedia article, leave this to a game guide. ErikWhite 17:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Yavneh

To quote User:Saberwyn, this is a US summer camp. Unless the article can explain, through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable third-party sources, how this summer camp is significantly different from the standard, run of the mill summer camp, there is nothing we can do that the camp's own site cannot do better. Entirely non-notable. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn camp. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 08:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 09:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 530 Ghits.--Jusjih 14:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisment Medico80 21:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Lankiveil 23:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. -- saberwyn 23:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Popular enough to be notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure it's a great camp, but it's nn. --Dakart 09:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm concerned about this campaign to delete Jewish camps. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Over 60 years old, affiliated with Hebrew College, mentioned in The Jewish Journal, certainly as notable as many of the elementary schools listed on Wikipedia and camps listed in Category:Summer camps, and concerned about PZFUN's campaign to delete Jewish articles - I believe over 40 listed in one day, and a number of the camp nominations were clearly made without reading the articles (e.g. referring to Canadian camps as "U.S. camps"). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jayjg and MPerel. Unfortunately, this article is part of a large group of articles that were recently nominated for deletion and about which there is at present much friction see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin, so it would be advisable for this nomination to be withdrawn entirely ASAP. IZAK 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable summer camp. —Viriditas | Talk 22:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No more or less notable than the dozens of camps in Category:Summer camps that are not up for AFD. Homey 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May be a WP:POINT nomination, but there's no reason why this should be in an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Jayjg and Homey. Alithien 23:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oy vey. -- JJay 23:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by others above, this delete request is part of a rampage to delete Jewish-related articles. If it is a stub, then expand it. Perhaps there could also be a merge with other pages on Jewish summer camps into a general article on Jewish summer camps and how they are different from "run-of-the-mill" US summer camps (i.e., their role in ethnic identify of Jews, history re: Jews being not welcome and/or proselytized by Christians in other summer camps, use of Hebrew and Yiddish languages at these camps, etc.) But simply deleting all Jewish summer camps as "not notable" smacks of a hidden agenda against Jews. Rooster613 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613Rooster613 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked carefully and could find no mentions of this camp that were not advertising or otherwise from the camp itself, except for the Wikipedia entry. This camp fails WP:CORP, I think that's pretty clear, and without any reason to think we should treat it specially, we should delete it. Just because there are other articles on summer camps that don't belong doesn't mean we should keep this one. And while there may be something wrong with someone's behavior, this deletion proposal is reasonable. Mango juice^talk 00:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comments above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tawonga

To quote User:Saberwyn, this is a US summer camp. Unless the article can explain, through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable third-party sources, how this summer camp is significantly different from the standard, run of the mill summer camp, there is nothing we can do that the camp's own site cannot do better. Entirely non-notable. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn camp. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 08:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 09:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Lankiveil 23:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomi... hang on. -- saberwyn 23:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Abstaining per below. -- saberwyn 10:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, 81-year-old summer camp, described by the San Francisco Chronicle as "a popular summer camp for Bay Area youngsters in the Sierra".(J.L. Pimsleur. San Francisco Chronicle. June 4, 1999: pD4.). It has also been claimed that in September, 2004, Camp Tawonga became notable for being the first camp in North America to host the first Palestinian summer family peace camp [7] [8] [9] (Libby Traubman, and Len Traubman. "Jews who just say no--to AIPAC.Letters. Letter to the Editor." The Nation 279.16 (Nov 15, 2004): 2). Tawonga's notable peace camp was also mentioned in a July, 2003 issue of the magazine, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. [10] Featured March 11, 2003 on MSNBC in an article by Grechen Perry Throop for the King Features Syndicated column, Arthur Frommer's Budget Travel. [11] Also supported by many notable people and agencies. [12]. —Viriditas | Talk 06:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Viriditas- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on condition that ext links/refs are added. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HEY!! SOURCES!!!!! Now all we need is for somebody to use those sources to construct an externally verifiable, encyclopedic article! -- saberwyn 10:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - frivolous nomination. --Leifern 12:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Frivolous nomination. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment':Hello...I wrote the article. First of all, I do not agree that it should be deleted on the basis of it not being different than the average camp (with the "traditions" section, I think I make it quite clear what makes it unique, as basically every summer camp is unique and has its own unique traditions). However, in writing the article there was one wikipedia rule that I did overlook which was original research. A good deal of the article was culled from my own experiences working there, which I'm sure you guys suspected. I'm not familiar with the intracacies of the rule and if exceptions are made, but I really don't know how to cite some of the information. Some parts like the history could be easily cited to the website but other than that, I don't know.--DanyaRomulus 19:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm concerned about this campaign to delete Jewish camps. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is against WP:POINT. Pecher ^Talk 20:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jayjg and Viriditas. Unfortunately, this article is part of a large group of articles that were recently nominated for deletion and about which there is at present much friction see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin, so it would be advisable for this nomination to be withdrawn entirely ASAP. IZAK 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and support IZAK request. Alithien 23:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Same nominator, same argument. These camps are different and that has not been addressed. Very hard to assume good faith given the circumstances. -- JJay 23:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by others above, this delete request is part of a rampage to delete Jewish-related articles. If it is a stub, then expand it. Perhaps there could also be a merge with other pages on Jewish summer camps into a general article on Jewish summer camps and how they are different from "run-of-the-mill" US summer camps (i.e., their role in ethnic identify of Jews, history re: Jews being not welcome and/or proselytized by Christians in other summer camps, use of Hebrew and Yiddish languages at these camps, etc.) But simply deleting all Jewish summer camps as "not notable" smacks of a hidden agenda against Jews. Rooster613 23:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613Rooster613 23:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comments above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Miriam

To quote User:Saberwyn, this is a US summer camp. Unless the article can explain, through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable third-party sources, how this summer camp is significantly different from the standard, run of the mill summer camp, there is nothing we can do that the camp's own site cannot do better. Entirely non-notable. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn camp. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 08:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 09:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 660 Ghits.--Jusjih 14:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Lankiveil 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is a Canadian summer camp, my above point stands. -- saberwyn 23:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well the average run of the mill Summer camp often has its own article on wikipedia as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again a sloppy nomination. Camp Miriam is a Canadian (not a US) summer camp. If the article needs to be rewritten and/or expanded, then other tags are appropriate. This is part of a campaign to delete articles on every Jewish summer camp but one. --Leifern 12:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another unthinking nomination, this Canadian (not U.S.) camp is almost 60 years old, associated with an international movement, member of Foundation for Jewish Camping as one of 7 Habonim Dror camps [13], mentioned in The Canadian Jewish News, certainly as notable as many of the elementary schools listed on Wikipedia and camps listed in Category:Summer camps. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm concerned about this campaign to delete Jewish camps. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Leifern and MPerel. Unfortunately, this article is part of a large group of articles that were recently nominated for deletion and about which there is at present much friction see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin, so it would be advisable for this nomination to be withdrawn entirely ASAP. IZAK 22:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. —Viriditas | Talk 23:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and my other comments on some of the many other noms from this user. -- JJay 23:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by others above, this delete request is part of a rampage to delete Jewish-related articles. If it is a stub, then expand it. Perhaps there could also be a merge with other pages on Jewish summer camps into a general article on Jewish summer camps and how they are different from "run-of-the-mill" summer camps (i.e., their role in ethnic identify of Jews, history re: Jews being not welcome and/or proselytized by Christians in other summer camps, use of Hebrew and Yiddish languages at these camps, etc.) But simply deleting all Jewish summer camps as "not notable" smacks of a hidden agenda against Jews. Rooster613 23:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613Rooster613 23:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comments above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, summaer camps are not encyclopedic.--Peta 02:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Massad

To quote User:Saberwyn, this is a US summer camp. Unless the article can explain, through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable third-party sources, how this summer camp is significantly different from the standard, run of the mill summer camp, there is nothing we can do that the camp's own site cannot do better. Entirely non-notable and full of non-verifyable POV statements. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn camp. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 08:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 09:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1510 Ghits.--Jusjih 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Lankiveil 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saberwyn.... Hang on...? -- saberwyn 23:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well the average run of the mill Summer camp often has its own article on wikipedia as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to Summer camp? I personally have absolutely no problems with that article. in the same way I have no problem with McDonald's, but would automatically nominate for deletion McDonald's West Ryde II. -- saberwyn 09:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amongst other things, this camp is unique in that it is the only Hebrew immersion camp in Western Canada. Also can't help but notice that only Jewish summer camps were put up for deletion today...- Darknightonight | Talk 14:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable camp in Canada for reasons listed above and below. —Viriditas | Talk 20:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another sloppy nomination by someone who has been on a deletion campaign vis-a-vis Jewish articles which he hasn't closely read. This is the only Hebrew-immersion camp in Western Canada (not the U.S.), mentioned in several stories in The Canadian Jewish News and Jewish Independent, site of Winnipeg Beach's only synagogue (over 50 years old), received grants of $22,500 from The Winnipeg Foundation in 2005, [14], certainly as notable as many of the elementary schools listed on Wikipedia and camps listed in Category:Summer camps. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm concerned about this campaign to delete Jewish camps. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This mass AfD nomination of articles on Jewish camps is an obvious WP:POINT violation. Pecher ^Talk 20:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Viriditas, MPerel, and Jayjg. Unfortunately, this article is part of a large group of articles that were recently nominated for deletion and about which there is at present much friction see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin, so it would be advisable for this nomination to be withdrawn entirely ASAP. IZAK 22:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No more or less notable than the dozens of camps in Category:Summer camps that are not up for AFD. Homey 22:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jayjg. Alithien 23:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frankly, I'd like to see articles on every summmer camp in the world. Barring that, I don't want to sit back and watch every Jewish camp get deleted. -- JJay 23:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by others above, this delete request is part of a rampage to delete Jewish-related articles. If it is a stub, then expand it. Perhaps there could also be a merge with other pages on Jewish summer camps into a general article on Jewish summer camps and how they are different from "run-of-the-mill" US summer camps (i.e., their role in ethnic identify of Jews, history re: Jews being not welcome and/or proselytized by Christians in other summer camps, use of Hebrew and Yiddish languages at these camps, etc.) But simply deleting all Jewish summer camps as "not notable" smacks of a hidden agenda against Jews. Rooster613 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613Rooster613 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comments above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why? Because I have watched this entry grow, more than that there is enough in this entry to differentiate between any other "ordinary" camp. What other camp has programs like Massad? What other camp has history like Massad? This is more than the run-of-the-mill summer camp. This is life for every camper that returns, or becomes a counselor. And thus, along with the fact that is the only Hebrew Immersion camp in Western Canada, this should stay. If that's not enough, per comments above. Sens08 05:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Gesher

To quote User:Saberwyn, this is a US summer camp. Unless the article can explain, through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable third-party sources, how this summer camp is significantly different from the standard, run of the mill summer camp, there is nothing we can do that the camp's own site cannot do better. Entirely non-notable. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn camp. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 08:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 09:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2210 Ghits.--Jusjih 14:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Lankiveil 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -- saberwyn 23:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well the average run of the mill Summer camp often has its own article on wikipedia as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PZFUN hasn't even bothered to read the article he's nominated for deletion. It's a Canadian summer camp. Every Jewish summer camp except one (Ramah) has been nominated for deletion. I smell a rat. --Leifern 12:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Leifern. Camp is mentioned in more than one article in Canadian Jewish News, site of North Americans first weight loss and fitness Jewish camp, certainly as notable as most elementary school articles and many entries in Category:Summer camps. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm concerned about this campaign to delete Jewish camps. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jayjg and MPerel. Unfortunately, this article is part of a large group of articles that were recently nominated for deletion and about which there is at present much friction see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin, so it would be advisable for this nomination to be withdrawn entirely ASAP. IZAK 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently the nominator didn't bother to read the article before voting delete. Obviously, a nomination made in bad faith. Notable Canadian summer camp, not US as nominator claims. —Viriditas | Talk 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No more or less notable than the dozens of camps in Category:Summer camps that are not up for AFD. Homey 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and support IZAK request. Alithien 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all summer camps (yes, even the Jewish ones). Let's stop the disruption and improve the articles, not remove them. -- JJay 23:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by others above, this delete request is part of a rampage to delete Jewish-related articles. If it is a stub, then expand it. Perhaps there could also be a merge with other pages on Jewish summer camps into a general article on Jewish summer camps and how they are different from "run-of-the-mill" US summer camps (i.e., their role in ethnic identify of Jews, history re: Jews being not welcome and/or proselytized by Christians in other summer camps, use of Hebrew and Yiddish languages at these camps, etc.) But simply deleting all Jewish summer camps as "not notable" smacks of a hidden agenda against Jews. Rooster613 23:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613Rooster613 23:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comments above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Galil

To quote User:Saberwyn, this is a US summer camp. Unless the article can explain, through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable third-party sources, how this summer camp is significantly different from the standard, run of the mill summer camp, there is nothing we can do that the camp's own site cannot do better. Entirely non-notable. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 04:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn camp. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 08:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 09:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1990 Ghits--Jusjih 14:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Lankiveil 23:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per... me, I guess. -- saberwyn 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well the average run of the mill summer camp often has its own article on wikipedia as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is notable as a flagship camp for the Labor Zionist youth movement, has been in operation for a long time, and has thousands of alumni. Yes, it needs to be rewritten and expanded, but a {{stub}} tag would suffice for that purpose. --Leifern 12:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- this is notable as a flagship camp for the Labor Zionist youth movement... Would you be so kind as to provide an externally verifiable quote or citation from a reliable third party source to support this claim? If you can do so, I may be inclined to change my own opinion. -- saberwyn 12:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oldest Jewish summer camp in Pennsylvania (60 years old), associated with an international movement, member of Foundation for Jewish Camping as one of 7 Habonim Dror camps [15], mentioned in more than one story in The Forward and The Jewish Exponent,[16] [17] [18], certainly as notable as many of the elementary schools listed on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm concerned about this campaign to delete Jewish camps. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MPerel. Pecher ^Talk 20:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per above. —Viriditas | Talk 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Leifern and Jayjg. Unfortunately, this article is part of a large group of articles that were recently nominated for deletion and about which there is at present much friction see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin, so it would be advisable for this nomination to be withdrawn entirely ASAP. IZAK 22:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jayjg. Support IZAK request. Alithien 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Should not have been nominated. -- JJay 23:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by others above, this delete request is part of a rampage to delete Jewish-related articles. If it is a stub, then expand it. Perhaps there could also be a merge with other pages on Jewish summer camps into a general article on Jewish summer camps and how they are different from "run-of-the-mill" US summer camps (i.e., their role in ethnic identify of Jews, history re: Jews being not welcome and/or proselytized by Christians in other summer camps, use of Hebrew and Yiddish languages at these camps, etc.) But simply deleting all Jewish summer camps as "not notable" smacks of a hidden agenda against Jews. Rooster613 23:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613Rooster613 23:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comments above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:45 UTC (2006-05-25)

Giant sucking sound

Delete nn neologism created by Ross Perot during '92 election any relevant info could either be put on the '92 election page or Ross Perot article. Not worthy of its own article. Jersey Devil 05:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reyk _YO! 05:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; although the article does not assert it, the phrase "giant sucking sound" continues to be applied to modern situations in all kinds of publications; just Google it. Being more than a decade old and still in widespread use, it's hardly a neologism, and the article isn't a dicdef, anyway; it explains the political context. As Category:Political slogans goes, this slogan runs with the best of them in notability.
Melchoir 08:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Melchoir. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Páll :P Computerjoe 's talk 09:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Arbusto 10:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arbusto[o] – Gurch 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Melchoir Crum375 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable neologism Lankiveil 23:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, phrase still in use. 504 hits in Google Books, which is a very significant number for Books (and one not easily distorted by blogging, search engine optimization, etc. It is apt to come up in any discussion of international trade deals or job loss. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I am about to search the New York Times for recent references to the exact phrase. Let's see how many there were in the last five years and if the context is limited to Perot. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Ten references, and they pretty much confirm that it's in current use and not just an historical item. A couple: "June 28, 2005: THAT GIANT SUCKING SOUND -- In a stark reminder of the harsh personal toll of the airline industry's slump, the government released figures showing that employment at the major carriers has fallen 34 percent during the last four years...." April 1, 2004, an op-ed piece: "I hadn't been to Mexico since 1996, so it definitely caught my ear when I started to hear two non-Spanish words on this trip that I'd never heard here before: "China" and "India." Mexicans are increasingly aware that these two countries are running off with jobs and markets that Mexicans once thought they owned. You have to feel sorry for the Mexicans: they are hearing 'the giant sucking sound' in stereo these days -- from China in one ear and India in the other." March 5, 2004: "Ms. Grabbe said that the [European] union still worries more 'about the giant sucking sound from Eastern Europe.'" Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to Wikiquote. Wikipedia is NOT a collection of quotes. Bwithh 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't intended to be a collection of quotes. If you like, I can leave the sentence "The phrase has since come into general use to describe any situation involving loss of jobs, or fear of a loss of jobs, particularly by one nation to a rival." and relegate the three examples to footnotes. The point of the examples was to show clearly that this phrase has caught on and is a live catchphrase that is widely used, and not merely in discussing the 1992 election. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ted 03:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to North American Free Trade Agreement. Ewlyahoocom 19:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But in the article I've cited three cases of recent use in the New York Times—none of them referring to NAFTA. It originated as a reference to NAFTA but the scope is much broader now. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. - CNichols 20:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lankeveil. --Anchoress 09:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (10d/1k/2m/2mod) RasputinAXP c 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowed Buffy plots

Delete Buffycruft, any relevant info could be put on the Buffy page. Jersey Devil 05:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRUFT. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are plenty of more relevant Buffy articles for each of these factoids. Melchoir 07:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 09:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - could be of interest to writers and critics (TV and literary) and enhances understanding of the fantasy genre and its relationships with classical fiction Gpscholar 11:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC) gpscholar[reply]
Delete, personal observations. Dr Zak 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant info to Buffy and delete.--Jusjih 14:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Kicking222 14:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpscholar (talk • contribs)
- It should be noted that Gpscholar already expressed a preference to keep a few lines above this. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's also the creator, and sole contributor to the article. --TM 20:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cruft, OR. --TM 20:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Buffy cruft and original research. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft Lankiveil 23:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - should be a section of another Buffy article, not a standalone article. I'm not sure about the OR question, which would swing the balance between merge and delete. It does appear to have been well-researched and the concept of borrowing or paying homage is certainly not new or unique to Buffy. Paddles 15:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything passing WP:FICT that isn't already covered by Melchoir's comment, or just delete. I agree with Paddles' last comment. And all Buffista fancruft sites fail to meet WP:RS. Barno 01:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The literary and pop-cultural references and homages of a popular television series is a fine topics, but the information really should go in a) the main Buffy the Vampire Slayer article, or b) the individual episodes' articles. - CNichols 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very good article -- better than most other buffy articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.221.35 (talk • contribs) Could this be User:Gpscholar?

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad on Campus Foundation

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group, and is not referenced in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google found 172,000 hits, it is Chabad-Lubavitch's student wing. Gadig 06:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By 172,000 you apparently mean just 4, of which three are Wikipedia listings and one is its own website. Non-notable. Melchoir 07:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My mistake, I looked for Chabad on Campus and not Foundation. Gadig 07:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, but even then it's just 266. I'll leave it to others to determine if one of those is a reliable, independent source providing nontrivial coverage. Melchoir 08:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because the article isn't yet extensive, I am sure there is much that could be written upon the impact of Chabad upon Jewish students on campus. Its existence on 85 campuses in the USA likely means that it has an impact on an enormous number of people. In Australia where Chabad's influence is not direct, the Jewish population is small, and students commute rather than board at universities, Chabad's influence on campus is even significant. The fact that the organisation is not always known by its full name as a Foundation does not mean that it is a non-notable entity. jnothman ^talk 10:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Judaea

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group, and is not referenced in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 07:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is notable for its impact in the Jewish sphere, its sponsorship by Hadassah, its large membership base and its long history (indicating lasting impact and retention). W e s!  ^T _c 08:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but an article needs to be able to prove that these statements are true, which this does not. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOUNG JUDAEA is the largest Zionist youth movement in the USA, with thousands of participants attending camps and tours of Israel every year, as well as the largest single year-program in Israel for foreign students, with 3-400 participants each year... Young Judaea has 7000 members, running events and activities in 16 regions throughout the United States [19].

Read through that page and take another look at the validity of WP:NN in some of your nominations. While I agree that the NFTY regions can be deleted/merged, organizations such as USY or Young Judaea are extraordinarily notable. As a Reform Jew who has never participated in any of these organizations, I am well aware of their means and participations. That indicates notability throughout the Jewish world; there is no need for me to find a number of how many people therefore may be potentially interested in these organizations. W e s!  ^T _c 08:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 09:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seriously. 252,000 Google hits can't be wrong. Additionally, the history here further implies notability. Any claim to these comprehensive examples of notability implies a bad faith nomination and perhaps this issue should be taken up at an appropriate mediation process. W e s!  ^T _c 09:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 09:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Highly notable Jewish community organisation, and influences approximately 7000[20][21] youths' lives directly on a yearly basis. As a youth-based organisation, you will tend to have its members edititing its pages in a promotional way, but that is a fault of the nature of Wikipedia and not of the organisation's notability. jnothman ^talk 10:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems relevant of Wikipedia --Kristjan Wager 10:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why suddenly so many Jewish topics are being nominated for deletion. This organization is clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Synagogue Youth

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group, and is not referenced in any way. Over 90% of the artcle is a giant list of names and telephone numbers. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lists of officers have been deleted since they are not encyclopedia material. --Metropolitan90 06:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a collection of advertisements for external links. Much of it is copyright somewhere else, and I can't be bothered to track it all down. Melchoir 07:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep and expand: The organization is completely notable. It is one of the largest Jewish youth movements and is the youth branch of the Conservative sect. In the same way that NFTY is to Reform Judaism, NCSY is to Orthodox Judaism and BBYO is to non-sectarian/pluralistic Judaism. USY chapters exist in most Conservative synagogues. The organization is multi-national. Nearly all aligned Conservative Jewish teenagers who are members of a congregation have had some interaction, membership or participation with USY. The article needs considerable clean-up, but just because the nom hasn't heard of it (has he heard of any of the organizations I mentioned?) does not make it WP:NN. Wes! ^T_c 08:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I don't see any references in those articles either. Quite frankly, these unverified advertisements all look the same to me. This article in particular does not even suggest that a single word has been written on its subject except by its subject. If it's so notable, where's the proof? Melchoir 09:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The organization has membership of 15,000[22]. If you suddenly need a third-party to confirm that, it seems a bit frivolous. But media outlets are available: [23], [24], [25], and the Philadelphia Inquirer. W e s! ^T _c 09:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the Inquirer is enough. The article itself, of course, will still have to be rewritten away from a linkfarm. Melchoir 09:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then appropriate tags should have been used in the first place. The nom should have conducted this research prior to posting this AfD. Recent additions seem to be some attempt to make a point. But I'll try to assume good faith and allow the mass nominations to go through the considerations of AfD.

Delete. If someone turns it into an actual article and not just a list of links I'll reconsider. Arbusto 10:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Again, highly notable. The fact that the article is poorly written does NOT mean that it should be deleted. jnothman ^talk 10:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep USY is incredibly notable. The fact that the article isn't superb is not grounds for deleting something that surely should not be deleted. Did anyone even bother to Google "United Synagogue Youth" and check out the 70,000 hits? -- Kicking222 14:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Jewish Students

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group, and is not referenced in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a large and significant organisation within the realm of national student politics in the UK. Notable and worthy of an encyclopaedia article. Dorange 06:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no evidence of significance, and employing 11 people hardly makes it large. No references. Melchoir 07:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough for mine. It also seems a strange coincidence that so many Jewish related topics are nominated in the same day. Capitalistroadster 09:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I've been there. You find a whole category of articles with the same problem, and therefore the same solution. Is it better to space out the AfDs over several weeks, to pick them off one by one and hope no one notices? Or do you nominate them all at once and hope that your peers assume good faith? Ahem. Melchoir 09:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - organisation with a membership of thousands. jnothman ^talk 10:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Synagogue Youth

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group, and is not referenced in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 07:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 09:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Utterly notable. And poor writing is not criteria for deletion. jnothman ^talk 10:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Federation of Temple Youth - Northeast Lakes Region

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group, and is not referenced in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 07:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge to North American Federation of Temple Youth or delete.--Jusjih 14:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this afd closed? - pm_shef 23:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it was closed improperly. There as no consensus for "speedy keep" and as this article is about a chapter of an organization it meets Wikipedia's accepted criteria for deletion so an AFD is in order and should be allowed to go to term. If anything, there is an argument for speedy deletion, not speedy keep. Homey 23:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments in some of the numerous other noms from the same user. Speedy Keep was the right approach. Should not have been reopened, particularly with the same nominator. -- JJay 23:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Federation of Temple Youth - Mid-Atlantic Region

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group, and is not referenced in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 07:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete.--Jusjih 14:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Possible merge with NFTY, as this is part of a major, national youth organization with 1,000s of members, something the nom has chosen not to address. Part of an ongoing campaign to nominate scores of articles related to one religion. -- JJay 23:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
False, it's just a (stub) category cleanup. (Categories are organised by topic) Kim Bruning 00:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it's your comment that is false, since this article is not a stub, nor was it tagged as a stub at the time of nomination. I would suggest that you carefully consider the articles before making comments of that type (i.e. actually look at them). -- JJay 00:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the (stub) in parens. You were alluding to a pattern. PZFUN started out in the category for judaism related stubs, and then widened the search to pages that were similar to the pages already found to be lacking. Kim Bruning 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever excuse you want to give, this is not the way to approach improving content. I would suggest the nom make use of article talk pages, or clean-up tags, rather then blanket nominating entire categories/stubs or anything else. That would be a far more constructive "pattern". -- JJay 00:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please adjust the relevant policy pages accordingly. Kim Bruning 01:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what policies you would like to adjust. Wikipedia:Deletion policy is policy. It has a whole section on "alternatives to deletion". None seem to have been attempted by this user. -- JJay 01:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netzer Olami

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group, and is not referenced in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; somehow this one looks like it might be notable, but it doesn't really assert anything, there are no sources, and I found nothing convincing on Google. Melchoir 07:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very very utterly notable, although article is not of great quality and needs much improvement. The organisation is still international with thousands of members in its affiliate branches. jnothman ^talk 10:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Jewish Students Society

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group, and is not referenced in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most famous achievement is a website? Melchoir 07:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 26 Ghits cannot be notable.

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoar Hatzioni

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group, and is not referenced in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 07:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. International organisation with at least British, Belgian, Mexican, Argentinian and Israeli branches and has a long legacy. How this makes it utterly non-notable, I'm not sure. Again, the article needs much improvement, but this is not a criterion for deletion. jnothman ^talk 10:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 15000 Ghits are probably notable.--Jusjih 14:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Zionist Youth

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group, and is not referenced in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after removal of copyright violations, there are only two sentences left, still written in the first person! Melchoir 07:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Again, an organisation of large membership. jnothman ^talk 11:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete 359 Ghits are not very notable unless otherwise proved.--Jusjih 14:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Union of Jewish Students

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group, and is not referenced in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is part of the WUJS (World Union of Jewish Students), the most important Jewish student group. I agree that it deserves some cleaning but I just wanted to mentioned that is a very important organization in the Jewish circle. Gadig 06:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio (no wonder it sounded like an ad) Melchoir 07:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the article is a poorly written copyvio I think the subject itself is notable enough for an article. Instead of deleting it I think it just needs a complete rewrite.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't a copyvio, I would vote to Keep. As it is, I vote to Delete. Capitalistroadster 09:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above- Xed 10:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a large and notable organisation. Only reason why I'm not giving a strong keep is that its main role is as an umbrella organisation. jnothman ^talk 11:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 839 Ghits.--Jusjih 14:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 12:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurojews

Utterly non-notable organisation, article is a vanity project for the group with phrases like "a unique society was created" and "the society was born". No independent hits on Google. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 06:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 09:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 573 Ghits--Jusjih 14:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --Strothra 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability and relevance not asserted, no membership figures and inclusion criteria mentioned, no mention of agenda/activities other than "meetings". JFW | T@lk 19:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this article is only a stub and it is about a young organization about which more research is required. It is premature to delete this article. It may have significance to Europe's young Jews. Unfortunately, this article is part of a large group of articles that were recently nominated for deletion and about which there is at present much friction see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin, so it would be advisable for this nomination to be withdrawn until further notice. IZAK 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtual communities have strict notability guidelines. nn. —Viriditas | Talk 22:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending further research. I can read German -- perhaps there is more on this org in non-English languages? I found over 500 hits on a Google "advanced search" in a variety of languages. One was a German article about various activites there. Another was from the Prague Journal. The org was founded in Amsterdam in 1998 -- anbody here read Dutch? My point being, just because it does not pop up tons of refs in English does not mean it doesn't exist...Rooster613 00:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613Rooster613[reply]

Your point would be valid if Google hits established notability but they do not. If notability cannot be established inside the article then the article fails to meet the standards of Wikipedia. --Strothra 02:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I speak all of those languages, and there are none. Even the group's own "website" is entirely non-functional.[26] Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 13:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, nn --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya Computer Courses

WP:CORP written like an ad and Google hardly knows the company Rklawton 05:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've removed the contact info, and now it's practically a db-empty. Melchoir 06:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisment --Girish 08:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty ad Computerjoe 's talk 09:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wikipedia - never more than zero ads in a row. Andjam 11:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as empty and/or advertisement – Gurch 13:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 12 Ghits only--Jusjih 14:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad Lankiveil 23:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-Harbor Highway Tunnel

This is original research. All reliable sources only talk about the rail tunnel. (Talk:Cross-Harbor Highway Tunnel has details on the one that refers to a highway.) There are no Google hits for "Cross-Harbor Highway Tunnel". Contested prod and speedy (tagged for speedy because the author blanked it). None of the references even talk about this specific proposal - and only one, a random newsgroup post, talks about anything similar. I have studied the history of the roads in this area and have never seen any official proposals for such a road. --SPUI (T - C) 06:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although the article does look good. If reliable sources were found for the first paragraph of "Tunnel location and characteristics" and for "Tunnel benefits and limitations" I'd vote keep. Melchoir 06:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the author went on to create Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel, which talks about a real (and "notable") proposal, and which I have nominated for DYK. --SPUI (T - C) 07:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The rail proposal is a legitimate topic. This appears to be original research although very well written. Capitalistroadster 09:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found some sources that suggest this is a legitimate proposal in reviewing the links provided at the end. However they may not be reliable ones, as SPUI points out. The author needs to give reliable sources for the material in there, or this article should be userified but Keep pending verification. If a reaonable time elapses (a month, at the most) and nothing has been done, userify. (I was the person contesting the prod/speedy) ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's one source that talks about a similar tunnel (not even the same one), and it's a random posting to a newsgroup. --SPUI (T - C) 13:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR very little to be saved that is not OR a very well wrtieen proposal but it seems like an argument to proceed with such a plan rather than reporting that there is such a plan.--Nick Y. 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - That's the one. But the article is too well written to just up and delete. Hence my view that time should be given to find other sources, and if they do not exist, then delete. Meanwhile userify if it really doesn't work for you to have it in artclespace. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm actually thinking of redirecting to Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel if it's kept without sources. --SPUI (T - C) 14:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The content seems to be well written but too early to have its own article.--Jusjih 14:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but rewrite to an article about the generic "proposal", not this particular plan specifically Lankiveil 23:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect or Delete. Vegaswikian 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR very little to be saved that is not OR a very well wrtieen proposal but it seems like an argument to proceed with such a plan rather than reporting that there is such a plan.--Nick Y. 22:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as a group with no claim to notability. On a side note, it was really high school essay-ish too. Anyway, creators are not supposed to remove speedy tags. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pet a kitty foundation

Non-notable group, no assertion of notability. Not verifiable. Creator removed speedy deletion tag, so nominating.

Delete as nom. -- Tangot a ngo 07:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Yitzchak of Lublin

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Has articles in two other Wikipedias and is a known leader, and author of four books that are still notable nearly two centuries after his death. jnothman ^talk 10:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per jnothman. Arbusto 11:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Very important to the Hasidic movement.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tzvi Hirsh of Zidichov

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a google search returns 73 hits, with this article at the top. [27] --Nydas 09:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A google search means nothing with respect to the notability of a communal leader of the 18th century. He is the originator of a Hasidic dynasty which has an article, but I think you'll find that two centuries after his life, his books are available for purchase online: [28][29]. The fact that Wikipedia comes up first in Google is only a sign that Wikipedia is a popular web site. Please use common sense and don't just assume that if Googling it doesn't find gold then it isn't gold. jnothman ^talk 10:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the page really needs some references to support the notability of this person.--Nydas 10:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be hard to find direct references online: Frustratingly, those who are generally involved in the Zidichover Rebbe's works will not use the internet. Offline, there should be books on hasidism that should mention the Zidichov dynasty, but I'm not sure where or in what language. As is traditional in Judaism, a famous rabbi may be referred to by the name of his major work. To this extent [30] gives us reference to people that have cited him in making responsa, and a story about him. By the nature of clerical and religious modesty, one is unlikely to have enormous amounts written on their life, but will have references to his teachings. jnothman ^talk 11:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per jnothman. Arbusto 11:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per jnothman.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simcha Bunim of Peshischa

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone written about over 100 years after their death must have something going for them. A fair number of google hits. Andjam 11:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man was important to the Hasidic movement.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yisroel Avrohom Portugal

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN; reads like an ad. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man is the leader of a Hasidic dynasty. Clearly notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer Zusia Portugal

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am really beginning to wonder about your motivation for deleting nominating these articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Zvi of Savran

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination reasons are false: yes reference; does not read like an ad at all. jnothman ^talk 12:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am really beginning to wonder about the motivation for deleting nominating these articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Aryeh Milikowsky

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. A quote: "he is unparalleled in his spirituaity. He prays for hours on end meditating extremely long on every word." Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am really beginning to wonder about the motivation for deleting nominating these articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the Kotzker Rebbe is an extremely important figure in Hasidic Judaism. Article does not at all read like an ad. Reference to the Kotzk hasidim (of whom the current subject was the leader) is found in the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Hasidism although their paper-based requirements excluded all but the most prominent personalities (despite which Dovber of Mezeritch who does have an article in the JE1906 was still nominated for deletion by the nominator here). Google only gives us 12000 non-Wikipedia references for this 19th century individual! jnothman ^talk 12:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am really beginning to wonder about the motivation for deleting nominating these articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I also think User:PZFUN has an agenda. I don't see any supposedly non-notable Christian (or Buddhist, or Muslim, or...) articles nominated. -- Kicking222 15:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important figure in Hasidism. David Sneek 14:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naftali Tzvi Labin of Zidichov

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Delete - he's a rabbi who survived the Holocaust, which probably isn't notable enough. It's a nice (if extremely one-sided) story, but a google search minus wikipedia only turns up 28 hits. [31] At the moment, more than half the article is about WW2; I'd probably be happy to keep the article if it was rebalanced to include his whole life. You have to go to his dynasty article to find out that 'he had more than 200,000 people at his funeral'.--Nydas 09:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no convincing reason why this should be removed. 200,000 is a lot for a funeral. Arbusto 10:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the problem is that there's no evidence for this rather significant claim.--Nydas 10:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - He wrote over 10 works himself and has a book about him! Read it! Elsewhere the complaint (in PZFUN's rampage of AFDs on Jewish-related articles) is lack of references, here they are but are just not trusted. PZFUN's claim of "no references" is simply untrue. jnothman ^talk 11:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dovber of Mezeritch

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am no specialist in Chassidic Judaism, but I have read Singer and have an old, mostly unread, copy of Buber's Tales of the Hasidim in my bookcase (for whatever little either of those things are worth). This is a hugely important and famous Chassidic rabbi. He has a long article in the Jewish Encyclopedia here. This article has also had a large number of editors over the three years it has existed on Wikipedia. If you find something dubious, please ask for references by using the {{unreferenced}} tag first, wait a while, then nominate. (And a little research of your own before nominating never hurts either.) up+land 10:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uppland. Arbusto 11:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Enormously notable in the chasidic world and history. Was the subject of a Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) upon which the Wikipedia article was heavily based. jnothman ^talk 11:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Halberstam

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Halberstam (The First)

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 07:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Founder of a large and highly notable hasidic movement (Bobov). jnothman ^talk 12:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Zion Halberstam

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 07:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable leader of a large and highly notable hasidic movement (Bobov). jnothman ^talk 12:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Halberstam (The Second)

No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 07:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eisner Camp

No sources, non-notable, and a part of the campcruft tradition. Reads like an ad. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 07:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PZFUN. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biryonim

While there is a source listed, it does not work. The one sentence that is this article is pure speculation and not-notable. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 07:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dictdef; the single sentence doesn't really seem to be worth sourcing. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 367 Ghits only--Jusjih 14:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddush Club

Non-notable and speculative. No Google hits to show that this is anything more than just a slang term. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 07:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a one-off piece of vernacular not in common usage. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kedushas Levi

Non-notable. Google's top ten hits are Wikipedia or its mirrors. The article has no information about why such a text is in any way relevant or important. Should we have an article on every book now? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 07:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this doesn't appear to be historically notable. Any experts on the subject, however, would be greatly appreciated to advise whether this does conform to the usual Wikipedia standards of notability. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 1861 seems notable enough if it is still mentioned today. Needs expansion. Hopefully someone with knowledge on it can help. Arbusto 10:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev. Most of the information in this one-sentence article is already there, as is the image. David Sneek 14:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 875 Ghits only.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson and Metalgearsolid.org

total lack of sources. See WP:LIVING Geni 09:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: There is one source so far. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pov fork of Jack Thompson Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are sources, but none of them are remotely close to being reliable ones. If this is real, it could be merged into the Jack Thompson article, I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Move to Mitchell Lee Stuekerjuergen and focus more on him and the mis-reporting in the media. If there is some way to confirm that the comment was left by Jack then keep it, otherwise remove it entirely. AlistairMcMillan 14:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And in response to the POV allegations, sometimes there just are no redeeming qualities to mention. Would you have the Fred Phelps article edited to remove his notorious hate speech? sa9097
Weak keep, but move per Alistair. -- Kicking222 17:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – and merge anything useful into a relevant article (Jack Thompson?) – Gurch 19:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge, it shows how Jack contradicts himself or at least has double standards. He says he has deep concerns for the families of victims "killed by video games" and yet he wrote this letter making fun of a gamer's suicide? I think it should stay.Father Time89 20:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move per AlistairMcMillan. Right now, the article isn't entirely about Jack Thompson. Maxamegalon2000 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Move per AlistairMcMillan. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved and cleaned up. No opinion on whether the article should be deleted. --Michael Snow 19:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move & Keep per Alistair. If it can be verified, link to Jack Thompson. - CNichols 21:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (10d/1k/5m; information exists at Memory Alpha and otherwise fails WP:NOT) RasputinAXP c 19:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Aries (NCC-45167)

Star Trek starship whose only appearance is a few seconds in a listing on a display on the Enterprise in the film Star Trek: Nemesis. The ship itself never appeared on screen, never even featured in dialogue. Just a few seconds as a line of text on a display. Please see this screenshot for everything we will ever know about the USS Aries. Delete. AlistairMcMillan 09:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Correction: The Aries was briefly mentioned in dialogue in four episodes of The Next Generation. Never appeared on screen though. AlistairMcMillan 09:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already over at Memory Alpha, so delete all. --BillC 09:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
from what i have read from wiki's policies and guidelines, there is nothing to suggest these articles shouldn't be here. i think it's more of a case of one person opinion vs another on the topic. AlistairMcMillan, i wish i could understand your motivation, and i dont know why not seeing the ship(s) is no reason to have an article on them considering that there is more information on them than other Star Trek related pages on this site. i hope you reply and give me some closure on this. on --BillC's comment, If this is the case, shouldn't all Star Trek related matter be wiped from wiki's site, and if so how are ignorant people such as myself going to access this information seeing I only accessed Memory Aplha through a link on a Star Trek wiki page. It's easy to say, look it up, but have you ever searched Star Trek on google? you come up with a lot of dodgy results dont you? so if there is any truth in what your'e saying should there be some sort of breif discription within wiki(a well known site). I would suggest to see either a KEEP or a merge take place. And if a merge is needed, maybe one of these editor's that seems to have ample time look at pages for deletion, maybe some time could be invested into, reorganising/re-editing the entire Star Trek Category(as everything I've done is nominated for deletion]], because for someone like me who know's a bit about Star Trek, it awfully hard to get the information you want from wiki --Wiki Ian 22:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify my comment, which was not meant to suggest that anything that is over at Memory Alpha has no place on Wikipedia. Rather, although this might meet Memory Alpha's standards for Star Trek-related notability, a ship whose name appears once on screen in a list, and is mentioned in passing several times in dialog, does not meet Wikipedia's. As Peripitus has said, there is a Memory Alpha for this material. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and its function is not to collate information that is difficult to find in Google searches. --BillC 09:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some list of ST ships, it is. --Ton e 13:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn ST ship. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to some list of ST ships. —Steven G. Johnson 16:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and, as far as I can tell, no info outside of their existence is really available for most of them anyway. At any rate, this level of detail is what Memory Alpha is for. BryanG 18:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per —Steven G. Johnson and use as redirects. The info should be kept, but doesn't merit individual articles. Tyrenius 18:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as over at Memory Alpha (unless we are planning to Borg Memory Alpha) Shenme 20:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If these ships had actually been a significant part of even one episode than they might merit an article. Unfortunately, these are just useless fancruft. --Hetar 20:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Reyk _YO! 20:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, nn fancruft. Lankiveil 23:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete all - there is a startrek wiki for this material. Peripitus 03:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into a Starfleet Ships Wiki... And you do realize that that the screenshot says, "USS Aires" not the "USS ARIES," right?
Delete all, may be relevant to Trek-specific wikis but none notable enough for WP. Paddles 15:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. Sandstein 17:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Dr Zak 17:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to a Trek ships list. - CNichols 22:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep, if someone feels it's better as a redirect, they can change it to that as usual. - Bobet 12:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sharon Osbourne Show

There is nothing on this page that isn't contained in Sharon Osbourne, and let's face it, a crappy talkshow that was cancelled after a single season is not noteworthy. dr.alf 09:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact Sharon hosted it is a claim to notability. Computerjoe 's talk 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion? She's the Queen of ****in' darkness! ...Seriously though, TV shows are notable no matter how bad they are (can I nominate CSI Miami for deletion?) and the host is notable as well. Even if it doesn't have any more information at the moment a person entering this search term would probably like to get right to the meat of the information. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 10:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, isn't every television show notable? Especially if it airs in a retard(ly big) country like the United States.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 10:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that kind of language needed? Andjam 12:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the show probably was awful, being "crappy" is not a deletion criterion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I would like the article deleted, I'd have to say Keep as it's a notable tv show, despite not many people highly rating the show. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable TV show, a crappy talk show doesn't mean it should be deleted. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sharon Osbourne, unless someone wants to take on the unenviable task of expand the article past a whisper. Other brief disasters, like The Chevy Chase Show currently redirect to the perpetrator since there's just not enough notable material to support an article on its own. Kuru ^talk 16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chevy Chase Show shouldn't redirect, either. Keep notable television shows. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sharon Osbourne. Tyrenius 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sharon Osbourne. Capitalistroadster 23:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, in that it was notably awful. Lankiveil 23:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it sucked... It should be expanded, though. --Dakart 21:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sharon Osbourne, without prejudice; if the article contained some substance then (all else being equal) I consider changing vote to keep, but in its current form it seems pointless. If kept, it should be marked as stub/expand. Paddles 15:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:57 UTC (2006-05-25)

Angel´s Dream

This is just another bootleg. If we were to list all of these obscure bootlegs, we'd have more articles than we'd need. See also Tokus' speech in Talk:Nightwish. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 10:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Says it's unofficial. --Ton e 13:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100 Ghits only, nn.--Jusjih 15:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Kicking222 15:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bootleg. Lankiveil 23:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Shapiro

And:

Created by the same user that brought us Jacob Kosoff (now userfied to User:Jacob Kosoff), and both entries appear to be of questionable notability (the economist more so than the poet). Delete the disambiguation page, delete the economist page, and weak delete the poet page. --Nlu (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)In light of comments by Fucyfre below, revert disambiguation page to be about the poet and delete the current economist and poet pages. --Nlu (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an error here. I'm the creator of the entry on David Shapiro the poet. Is it possible you meant that the user you refer to created the disambiguation entry and some confusion followed. Shapiro the poet would certainly seem in my understanding to easily merit significance more than sufficient for inclusion, having been published by major New York publishers, eg, Dutton, Holt Rinehart, Random House, in addition to small presses, NEA and NEH recognition, etc. Fucyfre 11:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

[32] shows Jacob Kosoff (talk · contribs) as the one who created it, but I think what happened was that he copy/pasted it and then changed David Shapiro into a disambiguation page. --Nlu (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a mistake indeed. At least the poet is notable enough. If you find the economist prominent, it's keep for all. And fix the copy-paste damage. --Ton e 13:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the economist page looks like a vanity page, but I'd like more people's opinion on this before (speedy) deleting it. --Nlu (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new at Wikipedia, so correct me if I'm in error as to proper process, but as there seems acknowledgemet that the entry for David Shapiro, poet, meets criteria, I'll remove the deletion tag. Fucyfre 14:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, please leave AfD notices alone until the AfD is closed by an admin or in the case of a multiple nomination the AfD for that specific article is with drawn by the nominator (and usually the nom would remove it).--blue520 14:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I stand corrected. Fucyfre 14:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Redlink to David Shapiro (Rabbi) should stay for now. It is linked to from Maimonides School. -Reuvenk_{T C E} 05:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to keep the poet and to eliminate the rabbi. The economist info looks like a stub though. Could be expanded or eliminated?

Keep all The economist seems to enough Ghits to establish notability, poet seems to be notable, so obviously disambig page stays too. Paddles 15:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sufficiently notable. I think there may also be a couple of other David Shapiro's of note that are not listed. — RJH 17:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Both. The economist would seem, from University of Chicago publication alone to meet notability criterion, and the entry for the poet (which I created) I've addressed above. If there's consensus, might it be appropriate to remove the tag? Fucyfre 01:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:58 UTC (2006-05-25)

Headphones (album)

Lacks and/or fails to document notability per WP:BAND Femto 10:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable albums by notable bands. See rationale at the Headphones AfD, the band easily meets WP:BAND. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an album by a notable band asserts enough notability. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Very popular album by heavily hyped indie rock band. Amazinglarry 21:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, band's article now satisfies WP:MUSIC, therefore album is a notable inclusion. Ac@osr 22:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable album by notable band Lankiveil 23:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mattbrundage 13:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 12:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headphones (band)

Lacks and/or fails to document notability per WP:BAND Femto 10:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable, per WP:BAND. Afonso Silva 11:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with or redirect to Pedro the Lion for now, doesn't need its own article yet Having reviewed the links provided by badlydrawnjeff, I am changing my vote to Keep. I have added some of this to the article, which I now feel satisfies WP:MUSIC of itself.Ac@osr 22:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge, notable Pedro the Lion side project, will have completed an international tour in 2 weeks, after completing a national tour in February on the Undertow Orchestra tour. Also has multiple media mentions: [33] [34] [35] [36]. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Merge and redirect~~. Still, the page needs to be edited to document its notability, and I'm not quite convinced this content warrants its own encyclopedia article. Femto 15:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  That's allegedly what we have WP:MUSIC for. Thus, the content warrants it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  So far there is little content, notable or not. Alternatively to a merge with Pedro the Lion, merge with Headphones (album) and let that redirect here; it's rather redundant and is only linked from here anyway. This might give the topic enough substance on its own. Femto 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Or, we can, you know, expand this article, given the amount of valuable information. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  If the article is expanded to show that Headphones is an international touring act, I'll change to a keep. But someone will need to tell me how to do that fancy "crossing-out" thing with the text....Ac@osr 17:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC) (~~like this, see page code~~ Femto)[reply]
  
  I can't. If you can expand, please do. Because also according to WP:MUSIC, there's no obligation that an empty framework must be kept - the information actually has to be in the article to make it notable. Femto 18:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I didn't because I was on the way out the door, and will be again. You're capable, I've provided 4 links that prove nobility via WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This indie rock band is very popular and has been heavily hyped in recent years. The members are all members of other well-known and respected indie rock bands. Amazinglarry 21:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, project involving two well-known musicians Lankiveil 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not that it seems like the article is in serious danger at this point, I've further expanded the article with the information above, including some things even I wasn't aware of at the time. The article is significantly different than what was nominated at the time, thanks to the work of Ac@sor in starting it up. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, keep, this is fine of course. - You come across a disambiguation for a fairly recent band, whose article contains little more than a link to the track list of their only album, which then features a homepage link and a mention that a bonus track is released on iTunes. What are you supposed to assume about notability? Femto 12:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It couldn't hurt to do a google search. I found those links in 30 seconds, it takes much longer than that to do the 3 step AfD process. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some 15-20 nonnotable bands in the past 24 hours of the deletion log. No, not even 30 seconds—and it personally would've taken me much longer to find out. The burden of proof remains with the article, whose content should be distinguishable from a promotion even to those admittedly not hip to the jive. Femto 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why that's relevant. "Headphones + bazan" (both information you had when you AfD'd) brings up Pedro the Lion and the official website within the first three listings. Sure, the burden of proof remains in the article, but you didn't even try to improve the article, instead choosing to attempt to delete it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmmm, I don't think Femto is hip to Headphones' jive. Thanks for the links, badlydrawnjeff. -- Mattbrundage 13:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Pedro the Lion and Starflyer 59 are quite notable within indie circles. The Headphones has an allmusic.com entry, which is usually good enough for me. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 20:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:59 UTC (2006-05-25)

I Love You But I've Chosen Darkness

Appears to have insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty google hits [37] bringing up plenty of media coverage from reputable sources, touring US and Europe as we speak. I make that a pass under WP:MUSIC as it currently stands. Brilliant name for a band too. Ac@osr 12:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets WP:MUSIC. Touring, media mentions, and possibly albums at this point. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Kicking222 15:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', meets WP:MUSIC, notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, solid profile on allmusic.com - plentiful ghits. Many references available from existing article. Kuru ^talk 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Are you kidding, this is one of the most talked-about indie rock bands of 2006! Look them up at pitchforkmedia.com if you need external verification of this. Amazinglarry 21:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Amazinglarry, I hear them on SOMAFM all the time. Zero sharp 00:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they are certainly known enough to be included in Wikipedia --Fearfulsymmetry 04:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 05:01 UTC (2006-05-25)

Cult of the frozen sheep

This is bordering on gibberish, variation on the Cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster theme I guess (albeit without the notoriety). Unfortunately cases like this cannot be speedy deleted as Patent Nonsense, even though they clearly are. Rje 11:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baa baa, don't let it thaw. (delete) Femto 11:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear hoax/nonsense. jnothman ^talk 12:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non verified WP:V and due to that seems to be a hoax or is nonsense.--blue520 12:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this article embodies everything a Wikipedia article should not be. Reyk _YO! 12:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 105 Ghits--Jusjih 15:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bordering on gibberish is very diplomatic. No hits outside of myspace; only 6 unique ghits. Kuru ^talk 16:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly worthless. Lankiveil 23:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, how is this not patent nonsense? Jdcooper 16:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree with Jdcooper - how is this not patent nonsense? - CNichols 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep -- Longhair 11:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heytesbury street

~~no notability claimed for this street. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 12:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

not quite convinced after rewrite, but its a lot better. ill abstain but the vote should still run its course i think. if kept should be moved to Heytesbury Street. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reyk _YO! 12:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain- Good rewrite, but I am still not quite convinced. Withdraw my opinion. Reyk _YO! 20:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 14:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there doesn't seem to be any reason to keep this article. The article itself is orphaned, and a quick scroll about Google doesn't seem to suggest any reason why this street could be considered particularly notable. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I guess I didn't look hard enough. The rewrite gives us an article that should definitely be kept. Well done, Mr Lyons ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 03:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete 1650 Ghits--Jusjih 15:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NN Ydam 15:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After reading the rewrite I will agree that it is a lot better article but I'm not sure it is notable in the same way other notable streets are bar the two literatry references. Are these references unique, were they made expecting the reader to recognise the street. Are there a significant number of people who haven't been to the street who will of heard of it. Ydam 14:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think Joyce expected his readers to know Dublin intimately. If you took away the hospital and school, the street surely wouldn't qualify, but that's hypothetical - they both have been there a long time. Dlyons493 Talk 14:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn street. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I've added substantially to the article and I'm sure a lot more could be said by someone who knows Dublin history better. Dlyons493 Talk 20:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of rewrite by Dlyons493. TheMadBaron 20:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I won't weep if it's deleted, but Dlyons493 has made good improvements to it, and from an Irish point of view, it's not completely non-notable— though I admit it's not exactly a Champs-Élysées or a Fifth Avenue. AnnH ♫ 21:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Heytesbury Street. Thanks to Dlyons493 for the rewrite which establishes notability as a street. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename - seems notable enough in Irish history for me. Lankiveil 23:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is much better now.--Jusjih 12:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 05:03 UTC (2006-05-25)

Tariq_Panja

Bio stub for journalist with no established notability; Vanity entry? Ianb 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is explained. --Ton e 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete 9370 Ghits--Jusjih 15:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CSD-A7 failure to assert notability Ydam 15:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio, vanity. Ter e nc e Ong 16:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how this person is notable. Lankiveil 23:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, vanity. Article author's only other contribution was to add reference to birthday of this "distinguished British journalist" in 1981 - which was quickly removed as nn. Paddles 15:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability explained, useful article highlighting journalists history and work. Ben-evans 22:00 24th May

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 14:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mental emetic

Minor and irrelevant once-mentioned device from a television series Rob 13:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cool3 21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andymarczak 10:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 05:04 UTC (2006-05-25)

EnterConnect

NN software; fails WP:SOFT. Produced by Enterpulse, also currently undergoing the AfD process. Delete. Colon el Tom 09:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete product of a company that is at AfD at the moment for being not notable. --Ton e 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was listed on Friday 19th's AFD, I'm moving it to Saturday 20th. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as non-notable – Gurch 13:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 805 Ghits, nn--Jusjih 15:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn software. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as for reasons outlined above. Lankiveil 23:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 05:04 UTC (2006-05-25)

Saul Zanolari

Advert/vanity page about an "artistic genius" who gets 221 G-hits, wikipedia mirrors inclusive --Zoz (t) 13:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and warn User:LIPSIOGIUSTO about spam, as he has added Saul Zanolari crap to other pages, and even created a category (which is also up for deletion). -- Kicking222 15:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Less than 300 Ghits--Jusjih 15:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like vanity to me Ydam 15:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn Lankiveil 23:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. NSL E _(T+C) at 05:05 UTC (2006-05-25)

OCAU

This article seems to be a advertisment and may possibly border on vanity by the creator, but the site is visited by a large amount of users regularly, with a large user base. Candidate for a clean-up more likely, but neutral on this. No Vote --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

It sucks as is, but the site is rather popular and this seems to be the term people use for it. 14,500 alexa, fair amount of googles. Maybe it should be merged somewhere though... Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 14:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of nominator's evaluation of "a large user base". I've cleaned it up. See WP:Vanity: "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is ". Tyrenius 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was prodded as a speedy earlier, but was not a speedy candidate, thus brought it here to afd. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 22:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the basis that its more than just a crappy one line article. It has more info now plus a picture. Waynejkruse10
Keep This article can still be improved upon, but it's decent now, and I believe it should be kept. ShaunES 02:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agg's advertising his own site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.5.134 (talk • contribs)

Comment It was my idea to write a article about OCAU for wikipedia and Agg was just the one that implemented it. And why on earth would OCAU need advertising? - Waynejkruse10

Delete. Where is the evidence of this "large user base"? Zaxem 06:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Screenshot is [38] stating the amount of members. Note: requires sign-up to the actual site to see statistics.. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 06:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OCAU has received numerous Hitwise Top 10 rankings for being a popular Computer and Hardware News provider. It just needs to be expanded on to be more informative. I dont see it as being any different to other similar articles. --210.84.5.250 13:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep OCAU does have a large userbase and is well-known, in Australian PC tech circles at least, so borderline notable. I am not a member of OCAU myself, but most members of Whirlpool (website) (an unrelated Australian broadband forum that appears to be deemed WP-worthy) would know who/what "OCAU" refers to whether or not they are members themselves, and OCAU is regularly cited as an alternate and useful resource for computer-related information and advice. I expect/assume that OCAU would have more non-Australian members than Whirlpool does. Paddles 15:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep OCAU Seems to be a large community base and this does not seem to be advertising it, even though the site does NOT need advertising..... it can be an informative infomation base — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.51.123 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep they indeed are quite known at folding@home -Yyy 08:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn forums.--Peta 02:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Railpage Australia

This article sounds badly written and pretty much reads like a advertisment, yet the site itself is a popular place for trainspotters worldwide to get / exchange pictures and information of trains, infrastructure, and the like. I'll admit that I'm a railfan myself (heck, got a userbox in my user page), but many railfans and transportation fans in general worldwide visit the reguarly. No vote, but could do with a cleanup and a bit of expansion --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not an article. It's a stub. I've cleaned it up and added your observation. It's contradictory to nominate an article for deletion and then assert that it's popular! If that's true, I suggest you withdraw the nom (and add to the article). Tyrenius 17:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll admitted earlier that I'm a railfan myself. However, I did felt the stub sounded like a advertisement however. It did meet WP:WEB after a check. [39]. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valo

This article would appear to be about a neologism connected with paintball, hard to tell what it means though. As the article says, the word was coined on an internet forum earlier this month. Rje 13:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. unless evidence can be shown it is widely used and even then it should go to wiktionary. Ydam 15:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not even close to a transwiki candidate. -- Kicking222 17:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The vAlo product was introduced, rather than word coined, on the internet forum from what i read. !!!!
Delete as per above. -- No Guru 17:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 05:08 UTC (2006-05-25)

User adoption

This is an orphoned article written in management/business speak. As far as I can tell the article is on a management policy of trivial importance but, given that I don't work in this field, I might be wrong; but I doubt it. Rje 14:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. written poorly but if reworded i think it could be useful. THE KING 18:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Effective User Adoption is when the users use the system! Neologism with little currency, dictdef Dlyons493 Talk 19:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, eek, I have to put up with rubbish written like this at work, I don't want to do the same here. nn marketing term. Lankiveil 23:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as patent nonsense. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slovnergenlieterhoosen

This is nonsense. TheMadBaron 14:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nonesense Ydam 15:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Muscle contraction. Tyrenius 02:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flexing

Nonsense content fbb_fan 15:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary Ydam 15:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can be useful as an encylopedia entry but is not currently. Delete unless cleaned up. —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Saturday, 20 May 2006 @ 16:22 UTC
Delete Nothing but a dicdef, and the Wiktionary entry for "flex" already includes the definition used in this article. -- Kicking222 17:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful content. Is not nonsense, lots of people would have no idea what flexing is definately need to see this page. Unsigned, added by User:86.140.65.248
Redirect to Flexion or Muscle contraction or something like that. --Allen 18:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muscle contraction. Good suggestion, Allen. Reyk _YO! 21:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Kicking222, Allen. Paddles 15:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As suggested above. ErikWhite 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muscle contraction per Allen/Reyk. -Big Smooth 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Allen.--Peta 02:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US exam review

Listcruft. The article is a listing of vocabulary terms, and Wikipedia is not a list of definitions. —C.Fred (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Probably a teacher using Wikipedia as a webhost. —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Saturday, 20 May 2006 @ 16:24 UTC
- Which would be funny considering the part on the Oklahoma land run is wrong (See Talk:Oklahoma Land Race). Ash Lux 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably exactly what it is. ~~For that reason, I would hope the deleting admin will userfy the article, should the decision be to delete it from the main article space.~~ —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Userification isn't really appropriate. See the appropriate section of WP:NOT: "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. My thought was, rather than trash it outright on the original author, give him a chance to copy it off so he can post it somewhere appropriate. I don't hold faith that he's watching the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - There doesn't even really appear to be a single author. There's a registered user who created the page, of course, but most of the content was added by a bunch of anons. Probably classmates... Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Conceded. Especially when I saw "curriculum" misspelled; as a former instructor, that one really grated my nerves. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to List of United States history (or some such). Strip out "exam"-based terms. It's a very convenient overview. Tyrenius 17:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a very scattered list, trying to accomplish too much without enough depth. A category could better capture the main points, and a good narrative on some of the historical periods would name out most of the minor names. Let's not even mention that it needs vetted for accuracy—a quick skim revealed one serious factual error (date of Carter's presidency) and a minor nomenclature error ("Texans" where "Texians" is correct usage). —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per C.Fred. I like the idea of such a list, but I agree this isn't good enough. Tyrenius 17:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a study guide, nor is it freespace. This is just a crazy collection of terms and nothing more. -- Kicking222 17:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this as "WP:NOT a study guide", which still holds. Oppose a move to "List of US History", as such a list would be unbelievably long and utterly unmaintainable. A category for US history articles already exists at Category:History of the United States. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and did I mention that the article is unbelievably long, at 160 kilobytes (5 times the nominal limit)? Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT... Ash Lux 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an invaluable tool to reach like-minded articles. This article is still a work in progress, and factual/typographic errors will be fixed. This article WILL include narratives when completed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.207.221 (talk • contribs) .

Delete--Peta 02:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the site to be hosting this information, I agree with Zetawoof. - Runch 19:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Canada (and I will restore the history of this list as well). I would have called this a "delete" decision otherwise, because the idea of reference subpages has been rejected, and the Canada article already has this reference list in it. However the structuring of the references took place here, and to avoid any trouble with the GFDL requirements, the history needs to stay online. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada/References

Not a valid use of subpages per Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses. We got rid of subpages from the article space 4 years ago. Reference pages like this, when corectly named, are only useful when a great many articles share the same references. The content of this page has already been moved back into the Canada article. --mav 15:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete as nom. --mav 12:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses is a guideline. Regarding the difference between a guideline and policy is, as quoted on that page, "Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus.". The Canada editors did not ignore the MOS guideline. Consultation was done with the MOS guidance in perspective, and decided that in this specific case, it was best not to follow it. The reason for this is two-fold. One is that there is a large amount of references, which in combination with the footnotes would make the bottom of the text very long. Secondly, the references are divided up into the sections they back up, so that the interested reader can find what they are looking for easily. This would however, make the table of contents on the first page overly long and complicated, so the decision was to place it in a subpage. -- Jeff3000 15:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Two things: / does not make a subpage in the article space. Thus this is simply a very oddly named page in the article namespace. This page, on its own, does not have any encyclopedic content. It can only be used as being part of the Canada article. The TOC being too long is not a reason to have a separate page; simply use ; in front of headings instead of ===. Making the article too long is also not a valid concern since Wikipedia:Summary style clearly makes a distinction between prose and non-prose content when talking about accepted article length. --mav
  - When I say too long, I'm not referring to the 32kb limit, I'm talking about the the electronic length of the page on a screen; the bottom of the text of the page becomes confusing and unreabable; generallly bad web style; webpages and HTML have been successful on the net because information has been able to be kept but not made unreadable. The information which is encyclopedic (references) is being kept one click away for accessibility of all the references and the footnotes. -- Jeff3000 15:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That can be fixed by allowing reference sections to be collapsible like TOCs or simply change the MOS so that references are always the last section in articles. In other words, this is a technical problem that requires a technical solution. --mav 12:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Keeping references together allows users to easily print them out and use them, rather than hunting through many different articles. Rjensen 15:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. All the references are still in the Canada article. What we have with this "Subpage" is two articles when only one article with a ==References== section is needed. --mav
  - You misunderstand Rjensen's point; Rjensen is pointing to accessibility of the References section, they are easier to print, and indeed view when they are not cluttered with all the rest of the text. -- Jeff3000 15:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back references are seriously important for an encyclopedia article, but they can't be an encyclopedia article. This just can't stand. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 16:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Canada. This is not a valid use of article space; it isn't an encyclopedia article. —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Saturday, 20 May 2006 @ 16:18 UTC
Merge back into Canada, not an article. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Canada. If the article is too long, then split off sections into their own article, and take the references with them. That is the normal practice. Tyrenius 16:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back and delete, I've never liked this separation of references from content even setting the subpage issue aside. Ideally these references will become footnotes, linked directly to the actual substance they're referencing, which will allow some of the unused ones to either be culled out or moved to a "further reading" section if they're significant. Bryan 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, just saw that they're already merged back. Just plain delete, then. Most of the work appears to be already done. Bryan 18:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI - This article contains numerous footnotes. The "References" section is a collection of all the works that are referred to in the footnotes. None of them would be appropriate for "Further Reading" since they are all referred to already in the text of the article. Cheers! User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 17:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that User:JesseW had discussed setting up referencing this way at one point. I'll drop a note on User talk:JesseW asking what came of the proposal. Jkelly 17:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion on references on seperate pages has changed somewhat. I strongly support going through an article, dividing it up into statements, then attempting to specifically verify each and every one of them, as a means of making sure of the accuracy of our articles, identifing useful references, and providing guidance on statements that may be unverifable. As this is a wiki, we should put the results of this type of work somewhere, so other people can help out with it. Where such material is placed is not something I feel strongly about. It could be at {{ARITCLENAME}}/References, Talk:{{ARTICLENAME}}/References, Wikipedia:Detailed Referencing/{{ARTICLENAME}}, or most anywhere else. The page in question here is not such a thing; it's a list of references (which is great!). I have no particular opinion on where it is located. Thanks for asking for my thoughts on this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 05:09 UTC (2006-05-25)

Ordinal fraction

This appears to be a non-notable Vanity page created by User:Bo Jacoby to promote a nonstandard notation of his own invention. He did publish this notation, he claims, in a 1990 conference. However, I can find no usage for this terminology outside Wikipedia, and a search on the Web of Science citation database turns up no one citing this publication. A further search for "ordinal fraction" on various databases, such as INSPEC turns up no usage of this neologism.

Note: I came across this article because we have had problems before with this user trying to promote personal nonstandard notations on Wikipedia. e.g. on Root of unity he tried to promote the nonstandard notation $1^{1/2}=-1$ (see Talk), and some time after being rejected he tried to re-insert that notation in Exponentiation (twice, see Talk). He also tried to insert his own nonstandard redefinition of the discrete Fourier transform (see Talk, discussion of "involutary" DFT).

—Steven G. Johnson 15:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non-notable concept. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, so far, unsubstantiated. Tyrenius 16:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. -- Zero sharp 18:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- looks to me like original research. Reyk _YO! 21:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and perhaps original research. DarthVad e r 23:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I had my doubts on this article a while ago, but I didn't do Stevenj's digging. A conference talk that nobody cites is still original research. Melchoir 04:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Gandalf61 11:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paddles 15:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Data Modelling concept is verifiable (although non-notable). (That means, I've seen it before — in fact, I've written a paper (Partitioning Files into Subfiles with Keys, with coauthors Edward Posner and Herbert Taylor. in 1977), in which a notation similar to that used in the Data Modelling section was used. However, I would have used "0", "1", and "*" instead of his "1", "2", and "0".). The name and pizza sections are almost certainly neologisms. Ah, yes, the Logical Conditions section is also verifiable, although "Addition" is usually "multiplication" (and) and "Multiplication" is a strange combination which I haven't seen before, but probably should have some explanation in papers related to Boolean Logic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Verifiability and per nomination. Barno 01:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The criteria in Wikipedia: vanity guidelines are not fulfilled, and the article is not about a person. StevenJ is fighting edit wars to monopolize several wikipedia articles. The pizza part of the article was inspired by the corresponding explanation in the introduction to vulgar fraction. The words ordinal and fraction are old, but the obvious combination ordinal fraction is from the 1990-article mentioned. If there is an article containing Arthur Rubin's results, we might merge. Bo Jacoby 15:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A Vanity page is information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author. In any case, non-notability alone, regardless of whether the conflict of interest here qualifies it as a vanity page, should qualify this article for deletion. As you said on Talk:Ordinal fraction, Wikipedia "looked like a good place for me to tell the world about ordinal fractions", and admitted that "the concept of ordinal fractions is new and might be controversial" and "to my knowledge it is not taught anywhere." (Your personal charge of "edit warring" does not merit a response.) —Steven G. Johnson 16:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original author's comments ("I was not aware of the policy against original research. Do you think that ordinal fractions belong to that category? It was invented (by me)...") Yes I do think it is original research - how did this one slip through the net for so long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainj (talk • contribs)

If it's been published in a book or a refereed scholarly journal before being put on Wikipedia, then it's not a violation of the policy against original research. Is this perhaps a borderline case? What is the nature of the publication? Michael Hardy 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... a book of conference proceedings? Unrefereed? Does the policy say anything about that? Michael Hardy 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main question here, I think, is not whether it is original research but whether it is notable enough to meet the bar for an encyclopedia article. (Determining whether it is original research in this case would require a judgement call assessing the reputability of those conference proceedings as a source.) There are zillions of articles published in excellent refereed journals every year, but not all of them deserve a WP article. —Steven G. Johnson 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now we have heard five arguments for deletion. 1: Vanity; 2: 1^1/2; 3: Originality; 4: Notability; 5: Not all published articles deserve a WP article. Let's look at them one by one. Argument 1 was withdrawn. Argument 2 has nothing to do with the case but merely documents that Steven is motivated by personal reasons. Argument 3 was withdrawn by Steven himself in the note above. Argument 4 seems to be refuted by the comments on the talk page; some people did read the article with interest. Argument 5 tells nothing about whether this very article deserves a WP article. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, my learned friend may be angry, but his case is weak. Bo Jacoby 06:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can assess the source: it's an uncited talk, and it doesn't avoid original research. It's also non-notable, because only one person has ever written about the concept; furthermore, I see no actual interest on Talk:Ordinal fraction, and even if there were, that wouldn't establish notability. Finally, since that one person is you, yes, it's vanity. Melchoir 07:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refutation to Bo Jacoby. As far as I can tell, argument 1 has not been withdrawn; Steven Johnson's comment suggests to me that he thinks the article does meet the vanity criteria. My reading of Steven's comment on argument 3 is that the question of originality (whether the article violates WP:OR) is still open (not yet established). Argument 4 is also not refuted - interest does not equal notability, no matter what notation you use. Arguments 2 and 5 appears to me to be the only one you have got correct. Finally, Steven speaks only for himself, not for any of the other commenters (except where they say "per Steven Johnson"). Are you able to give any references for papers (in peer-reviewed journals) that cite your 1990 conference paper? These would lend more weight to your arguments for notability than anything else so far. To date I have seen no reason to change my delete vote. Paddles 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bo, you don't help your case by making personal attacks and straw man arguments that anyone can see through. My consistent point has been that a concept/neologism published only in a single never-cited conference paper from 16 years ago is non-notable, and that this is a sufficient criterion for deletion. You have yet to address this. The fact that it is apparently a vanity article (which I never conceded) is additional motivation for deletion, but is not necessary and so I don't emphasize it. I, myself, never used the original-research argument—it may be true, but I think it's not worth arguing when the notability argument is so strong. I pointed out your repeated original-notation offenses simply to provide background and to speak to your credibility, and not as an argument per se about this particular article. The comment about not even all refereed journal papers being notable enough for WP was simply to pre-emptively address the specious argument that being published anywhere somehow qualifies a thing as notable. From above, I can tell that all of this was clear to everyone else, but I wanted to answer for myself. —Steven G. Johnson 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Steven. I am not making personal attacks or straw man arguments. I think you are. I am merely reading what you wrote: "This appears to be a non-notable Vanity page created by User:Bo Jacoby to promote a nonstandard notation of his own invention". In extention to 'non-notable', which is by now your only remaining argument, you called it vanity, and you argued ad hominem ("I came across this article" &c). Now taking up your sole remaining argument: "a concept/neologism published only in a single never-cited conference paper from 16 years ago is non-notable". What is the WP definition of 'non-notable'? I know that there must be a reference, and so there is. I did not know the requirement that the reference had to be cited; where in the WP policy do I read that? Nor did I know that the reference cannot be 16 years old; where do I read that? I suppose that this piece of information ("from 16 years ago") is not really relevant to your argument. If it is, please document it; if it is not, please omit it. Then you have this subtle distinction between saying and not saying something: "not necessary and so I don't emphasize it". It is not clear to me what you mean by writing something without emphasizing it. I suppose it means that it should have been omitted. So all that remains of your argument is that the 1990-paper has not been cited. That, I think, is true: I know of no citation in a peer-reviewed paper. It was reviewed and accepted prior to the conference by the conference committee. It has been discussed in not peer-reviewed papers, and I have talked to people who have read it, and I have mailed with people who have read my WP article. When you show me the WP policy that un-cited papers do not count, then you are free to delete the article. I think that you are mad at me, for reasons that has nothing to do with the ordinal fraction article, and you act accordingly. You are not checking every WP article for uncited references, which would otherwise be the case. Bo Jacoby 10:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bo. Direct quote from WP:VANITY:

"The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them."

Direct quote from WP:Notability:

"Many editors also believe that it is fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)."

Now: peer-reviewed sources are considered reliable, but non-peer-reviewed sources generally have less credibility/reliability, just as prominent news websites have more credibility/reliability than myspace pages. Given that the article in question was written by a person (a) about a concept they created themselves that (b) has not been cited in others' peer-reviewed research or (c) generated discussion outside what appears to be a small group of people, it seems obvious that the article qualifies for deletion as both vanity and non-notability. If you can't see that, then I don't know what else to say. This is not your article being singled out for extraordinary attention; hundreds of articles a day are marked for deletion, either through the "prod" tag or the AfD process. In any case, even if Stephen Johnson is engaged in some sort of conflict with you, each person participating in the AfD discussion makes their own judgement on the merits; the nominator's opinion doesn't carry any extra strength. Paddles 11:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bo, I'm not "mad at you", I simply have learned to mistrust your ability to follow Wikipedia guidelines. In exactly the same way that when I see a user upload one copyvio image I look to see if they have uploaded other copyvios, when I saw that you cannot resist inserting nonstandard personal notations it seemed reasonable to spot-check some of your other contributions. And as Paddles said, I don't control the other participants in this forum...doesn't their unanimous opposition tell you something? I admit that it is tiring to debate with you when you resort to sophistry, however. (e.g. I didn't say the reference was not notable because it was old, I said it was not notable because it was old and never cited.) —Steven G. Johnson 16:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You answered my questions. Thank you.

Direct quote from WP:NOR:

"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.

Direct quote from WP:Vanity:

vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is

Direct quote from WP:Notability:

A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact.

Ordinal fraction technology is notable, not for the first reason, but for the second: its particular importance or impact. Ordinal fraction notation has the same potential impact on database technology as the Arabic positional notation for numerals had on arithmetic. Writing Arabic numeral 102 instead of saying 'one hundred and two' has the same benefit as writing the ordinal fraction 102 instead of saying 'X=1 and I=2'. The Arabic numerals had immense importance and impact. Ordinal fraction technology has potentially the same importance and impact. Bo Jacoby 13:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Peta 02:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Richard Torbay. No Guru 17:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Torbay

An anonymous user attempted to nominate this article for deletion; I'm completing the nomination. The subject is described as an Australian state legislator, but the one-sentence article contains minimal information, and the subject is apparently not currently in the legislature. Googling produces some information about a musical conductor of the same name but nothing about a politician by that name. Metropolitan90 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. Not referenced. Tyrenius 16:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and nn. Also see the article's talk page. -- Kicking222 17:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on Richard Torbay, an Independent member for Northern Tablelands in the Legislative Assembly. It seems from our Richard Torbay article that his full name is George Richard Torbay. His page on the NSW Legislative Assembly webpage confirms this as a fact see [40] As this is the case, the article should Redirect to Richard Torbay. Capitalistroadster 23:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non existant. I don't think that a redirect from George Torbay should go to Richard Torbay. It seems like a major difference to me. DarthVad e r 23:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Capitalistroadster. His page on the NSW Parliament website puts his name as Mr (Richard) George Richard TORBAY and confirms he is a current sitting member. We can be confident that the two people are the same. Richard seems to be his preferred name. Paddles 16:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 23:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect The relationship has been identified and the person is apparently known by both names. If someone by this name comes up it would probably be best to use a dab statement. Also, redirecting keeps contribution history which is important to GFDL. Ans e ll Review my progress! 03:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, we can always undo it later if we find there are two people with different names. Lankiveil 05:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect. Per Capitalistroadster. Cnwb 23:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CR, until such time as someone writes an article asserting notability for the conductor of music, in which case we should disambiguate the George name. Barno 01:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 05:12 UTC (2006-05-25)

Manisoft

Looks like a local shop for local people, nothing towards WP:CORP. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 15:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 06:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability doubtful, looks like advertising/vanity. Paddles 16:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep per nom's withdrawal and redirect decision.. --Hetar 20:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Angel (poem)

~~The poem and the poet's homosexuality are already mentioned in the (short) article Lionel Johnson. A stub on the poem is unnecessary.~~Tyrenius 15:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn. Used as redirect as per fuddlemark -- Tyrenius 16:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So merge and redirect. We don't need to use AfD for this. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 05:12 UTC (2006-05-25)

List of KCC Conventions by Year

This is too specialised. It should be on the KCC official site with a link from Katoomba Christian Convention. Wiki isn't a handy substitute. Tyrenius 16:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So very unencyclopeic. -- Kicking222 17:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I only started the list 15 hours ago! The reason I started the list is that the official site doesn't list all the conventions - they only maintain a rolling calendar. A list of topics and speakers, as well as the number and type of convention is part of the history of KCC and demonstrates its health/weakness over the years. I would think a list such as this would be a valuable part of the encyclopedia's coverage of this important part of Sydney evangelicalism. (more on talk page) Journeyman 05:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you analyse and describe the KCC's health and weaknesses in the article. (more on talk page) Tyrenius 09:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft in the making. Zaxem 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete potential listcruft. Commentary about KCC's health/weakness over the years could be interesting but would most likely count as WP:OR, and in any case would belong in the KCC article itself. If the author hosted a site containing this content then I'd be ok with it as an external link from the KCC article, but I don't think it belongs in WP itself. Paddles 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the list of conventions and commentary on its health would be OR since it would be drawn from published material: the official convention history, advertisements, newsletters, conference handbooks, etc. Journeyman 01:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I conceed. This has been my first deletion debate and I've learnt some new terminology (cruft, listcruft, vanity, notability, etc.) and also a lot about the purpose of wikipedia to be an encyclopedia (I'd always thought wikipedia would grow into an omnipedia). Thanks especially to Tyrenius for explaining stuff to me. Although I would maintain that the article meets at least one of the Wikipedia:Importance criteria, namely #1.

I have a back-up of the article. What's the next step? Journeyman 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest expanding the Katoomba Christian Convention article along enyclopedic lines. Study articles on similar subjects to get the idea and look at Featured articles for the highest standards. Also best not to include empty lists for future filling out. Put in the info that exists. Tyrenius 14:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but merge with Chinese character. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of common Chinese characters

This had the transwiki tag on it, but ... there are no definitions on it. Almost the entire thing is redlinked and should be delinked if this is kept, but I don't see the purpose of this list. It really looks like listcruft. TheProject 16:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redlinking probably shouldn't be taken into account for deletion; the creator of the article just seems not to have known that Chinese characters are on Wiktionary, not WP. Compare for example Kyōiku kanji or Xiandai Hanyu changyong zibiao in which the characters are active Wiktionary links. That, at least, is easily fixed. —Zero Gravitas 20:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I generally don't think that Chinese characters ought to become titles of articles in the English namespace. I see the list having at least some potential, though, but to be useful it ought to provide meanings of the characters, and any links should be to English language articles. Until there's enough for an article on its own, the information that these characters are the commonest might make a valuable addition to Chinese written language or Chinese character, so in the interim I'd suggest merge there. Smerdis of Tlön 21:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unuseful redlinks. Transwiki to Wiktionary if preferred, with soft redirect. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not useful.--Peta 02:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chinese character add source needed to "500 most common" and "72%".--Nick Y. 22:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was -- Keep. - Longhair 12:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Butler

I don't believe being a coach makes you notable. Certainly no notability is asserted in this article. D e nni ☯ 16:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NN this has to the bottom of the barrel in terms of trying to assert notability. Ydam 16:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep After reading other contributions I have to agree that she does scrape through on the notability front. Ydam 14:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no notability asserted --JBellis 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong keep First of all, for me, being the head coach of a Divison I program is more than enough notability. Second of all, and more importantly, she easily passes WP:N, as she played college ball at Florida. By WP:N, a sportsperson is notable if s/he played, quote, "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." Division I is the highest level, so she passes with room to spare. I do agree that the article should do a better job of asserting notability, but it's absolutely there. -- Kicking222 17:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kicking222 Osomec 21:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Amazinglarry 21:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I disagree that simply playing in Division I in any sport makes you elligible for for a Wikipedia page, but I would say that being the current head coach of a Division I program is sufficient. VegaDark 00:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that being a head coach of a Division I program makes you sufficiently notable. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Wikipedia is not (yet) a random collection of obscure non-notable information. Bwithh 03:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep check google she notable. ("coach of the year","first year guided UNC team to championship") --MarsRover 06:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Flower party☀ 02:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benbecula Records

Delete non notable record label, in fact one of its bands was also deleted recently for being non notable. Strothra 16:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - another of the label's acts, Christ. survived a contemporaneous vote; in fact, the result was a speedy keep. What are the guidelines for record labels; there's nothing in WP:MUSIC, is it WP:CORP? Ac@osr 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article was speedily kept mostly because I withdrew my nomination for deletion mostly because I had meant to put a merge tag on it but didn't. It also updated a major weakness in its sources. The band was not notable because of its label. As for the guidelines for labels; if there's nothing in WP:Music then that doesn't mean you can't still discuss the deletion. --Strothra 20:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if there are no set criteria, how can one decide whether or not a label is notable? I would say that it would have to go by their artists - Frog Pocket, Reverbaphon and Christ. are all listed at AMG, "Frog Pocket" , a phrase with no other known meaning, has significant GHits, [41], Christ. survived AfD as it was felt notability had been satisfied following a clean-up, Reverbaphon, again with no other known meaning, does well on Google [42] and Greenbank has too many other meanings and usages for a Google search to have value. It is very much a niche label - all artists are Scottish and all create electronic music. In that small pond, they are a well-known big fish. Question is, is that pond too small to ever satisfy notability? On balance, I'm saying Keep. Ac@osr 22:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough. I take the position that that "pond" is too small to satisfy notability. Of course, there are no guidelines on establishing what that size should be, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and does not require set guidelines on everything to establish notability. I do, however, understand your objections very well. Keep in mind that you may also chose to place an abstain rather than a keep so that you can go on record for a new guideline.--Strothra 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've just discovered that the deleted artist mentioned in the nomination, Prhizzm, is Canadian, so the roster is not, as I had previously thought, exclusively Scottish. Also, that article is under a deletion review which makes interesting reading. Ac@osr 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable label with notable artists signed to it. OZLAWYER talk 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hello, I am Steven and I manage Benbecula Records. I have never posted anything to Wikipedia before and so my apologies for the sudden interest. Obviously this topic is of importance to the label and so here I am. My two cents. Benbecula Records has been running since 1999 and in many respects is one of the longest running electronica / experimental labels in the world, considering the hundreds that have emerged over the last three or four years. I appreciate that Scotland may be viewed as a small pond, with regard to population and land mass, but I feel that is where the smallness ends. Benbecula is a hugely influential label with a dedicated fan base, paid subscribers and with dozens and dozens of positive reviews across the printed and electronic press. The label has gained massive respect from national and worldwide radio, the most prolific being the late great John Peel. Within Scotland, Benbecula is viewed as a massive influence on others who decided to start labels and make music over the last five years. Benbecula is an innovator that easily outperforms its peers via modern music that pushes the envelope and entertains, rather than, in my view, offer self-indulgent, meaningless compositions. Furthermore, Benbecula sets itself apart from many of its peers (which incidentally still have pages on Wikipedia) by offering a discography that has stood the test of time musically. Our artists individually may not be MTV material just yet but as a whole our output is powerful and far reaching. Lastly, I fully respect the regulations that govern Wikipedia, and will not be in the slightest bit put out if the deletion does occur. Wikipedia has done us some great service, as we receive many referrals each month from your site, testament to the fact that people are interested and click to learn more. However I would not be doing my job if the opportunity was not taken. Long live Wikipedia and thanks to all for listening.

Keep. Frog Pocket made an album for Planet Mu, yet he still releases for Benbecula. You're not going to delete Planet Mu; you shouldn't delete Benbecula. I'm Canadian but I've gladly shelled out import charges for the 40 quid Minerals Series (which reciently sold for over 60 pounds on eBay so there's obviously interest) and Christ.'s first album on vinyl (Alias from Anticon appeared on their last EP).Mangle 11:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for posting Steven; as a Scotsman, I was more than aware of Benbecula's reputation and, as I've noted, on balance, I think the label's position is strong enough to merit a keep. The article needs cleaned up and expanded to bring in more critical appraisal from reputable sources because, on local knowledge, I'm fully aware that what you're saying as regards Benbecula's position is entirely true. What we need is to find it written down somewhere. I also think that Frog Pocket meets WP:MUSIC and I'm going to do an article accordingly, although I may not be able to do this until the weekend. Ac@osr 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Hard to tell on this one I would give it the benefit of the doubt. Seems like a real operation hard to judge indie recognition/importance since I am not familiar. I have no doubt about labels like Anticon which are also small but pretty influential and these guys seem to have been around for a few years too.?--Nick Y. 23:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Even with the removal of vandalism by User:RN, the argument that this organization does not meet WP:CORP guidelines, or general notability guidelines, holds. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIFICE

Advertisement, but even with a cleanup this company would still (in my view) not be notable, I can't seen it meeting any of the criteria on WP:CORP-- Joann e B 16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Blatant spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion.~~ - Mike Rosoft 17:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The most blatant spam has been removed, but the article still reads like promotional. - Mike Rosoft 09:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:CORP. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that spam has been removed. I made the original complaint about spam by email. EDIFICE is a non-profit standardisation organisation, does it need to conform with WP:CORP? If this is still considered AfD, maybe it should be merged to EDIFACT? --Veijari 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was -- Delete - Longhair 12:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAKISTANI BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC MAGAZINES AND JOURNALS

Text dump of some essay/newspaper article, possible copyright violation. Previously deleted by WP:PROD. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Makemi's reason for deletion was: "Looks like a textdump of a paper, original research, uses Wikipedia as a source, which is bad form." - Mike Rosoft 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree it's probably a copyvio. Mak (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a repost of previously-deleted material (as this was taken down three days ago). I don't know why you didn't just tag it for deletion as opposed to bringing it to AfD, Mike Rosoft (man, what a name!). If this isn't speedied, then obviously, it's a clear-cut delete. -- Kicking222 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An article which was deleted by "proposed deletion" and re-created is NOT a candidate for speedy deletion. Please read WP:PROD. - Mike Rosoft 18:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: definately a copyvio from somewhere. --Hetar 20:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 23:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Naconkantari 17:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOR. Probable copyvio. Also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Faryal. Stifle (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 02:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Towns (NWN)

NN entry on a game server. Delete G y re 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 23:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WTH. Stifle (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must say Keep for the simple reason the Nominator has failed to outline any valid reason as to why the article should be deleted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Nick Y. 23:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was -- Delete. - Longhair 12:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military singles

Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 1.2 mil. discospinster 17:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Wide Angle (PBS series). -- Jonel | Speak 03:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wide_Angle_(PBS)

Delete - more complete page already exists Osbojos 12:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Edgar181 14:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect. Youngamerican 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (NB no reasons given by nom either). Tyrenius 02:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deepa Fernandes

This nomination was (imperfectly) started by user:Gpscholar, I'm simply fixing up Gpscholar's nomination, without comment. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of an adequate explaination from Gpscholar, one can only guess. As a nationally-known radio personality, Fernandes seems amply notable. There's reasonable citation in the article, and a cursory google confirms the hypothesis she is a real person and not a hoax or vanity addition. There's no indication that the article is a copyvio. It doesn't seem to be OR or fancruft or irrevocably biased. So we should keep it, bar a good reason not to. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article itself asserts sufficient notability. A quick google search provides sufficient information to support this article. Fluit 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, references seem to support notability claims in article. Mr. McWalter has thoughtfully left a prompt on the nominator's talk page, so maybe that will prompt further discussion or at least a starting point. Kuru ^talk 21:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 02:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runhouse.com

non notable website per WP:WEB, advertisement etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minor claim to notability, but there's not enough to meet WP:WEB. BillC 21:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 23:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, as the creator of the article is one of the site's managers, and delete per nom. -- Kicking222 23:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an ad to me. --Dakart 09:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 02:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webcraft

A term (a neologism, one might say) which the article claims enjoys "considerable international currency", but for which (as a common noun) I can find no evidence whatever (it's used in plenty of tradenames, but that's not the subject or claim of the article). I would contend that this is unverified, apparently unverifiable, and is a non-notable neologism or meme which should be deleted from Wikipedia, and restored only when it has gained the notoriety it claims. Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be removed as it seems to be an advert for a book -- Lockeandload
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 23:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior arguments. Mostly seems like an attempt at free advertising. —204.42.20.4 01:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's non-notable among other things. Radagast83 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as {{nn-club}}. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-Cross Miami

I think it's non-notable. Gets less than 50 Google hits altogether, most of them are wikipedia mirrors. --Zoz (t) 18:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (I found no ghits outside WP clones.) --BillC 21:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 02:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Role Play Site

This is a forum that can't even afford its own hosting costs. It's nowhere near compliance with anything in WP:WEB so I am recommending delete. --Hetar 19:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because we're using Proboards as a host does not mean we're not worth being on the internet altogether. When you flagged the page for deletion, we were still working on the page. It was nowhere near finished, and was to be a simple informational page on the forum - not an advertisement. You didn't give us any time to complete the article. Hetar is obviously biased just because we're using a free host for our forums. --Trps 19:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This web forum doesn't have enough members and hasn't had enough influence to merit an encyclopedia article. Reyk _YO! 21:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry, friend. I can't see how a self-admitted small forum (with 29 members) could be considered notable with any amount of article re-work. Please read WP:WEB when you have an opportunity. Kuru ^talk 21:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet any of the notability criteria under WP:WEB. --BillC 21:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable —Steven G. Johnson 22:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and also userfy. -- Kicking222 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete from article space. No indication in the article that the site meets any WP:WEB criterion. As of Sunday night, the article is mostly just an ad for something little more than WP:NFT material. Unlikely to get enough coverage by reliable sources any time soon for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Barno 01:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only completed articles should be posted as articles. This should have been posted as a stub. Incomplete articles are deleted. The worthiness of bandwidth was never debated, the worthiness of a Wikipedia page was. It looks to me like it is a nice forum that doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page. --Cocopuffberman 03:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 11:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 02:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ansalon (MUD)

Non-notable, webcruft (per 69.204.179.124) Zeno McDohl 19:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MUDs are not notable. Danny Lilithborne 21:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are. But of course, there are certain ones that are not. --Zeno McDohl 00:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, revise for NPOV - this MUD seems marginally notable, having apparently been around since 1991, but the article reads like a fan page. —Steven G. Johnson 22:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Just because it's been around for a long time doesn't mean it's notable (unless it was the first something, which I doubt this MUD is). In addition (and obviously), it's also a very poor article, but that's not the point. -- Kicking222
Delete per WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Longhair 23:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Darkness

Non-notable band per WP:BAND with a MySpace profile and a demo disc that has yet to be released. Was originally tagged as WP:CSD#A7, but the db-bio tag was removed by the author without explanation. As the article had shown some growth since I originally tagged it, I added a prod tag this time instead, but it was deprodded again without explanation but the author. Thus, I bring it here. The author has also been completely unresponsive to the messages I've left him/her. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable: no full length record (in fact, no record at all). IronC hris | (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --TM 21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:BAND. Article seems to assert the non-notability of the band. --BillC 21:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 21:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even on the same boat as WP:MUSIC. Good luck with the demo tho'. Ac@osr 22:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, CSD A7.--blue520 15:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 02:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skelecode programming language

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. - Nordby73 19:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – appears to have been created by the language's creator – Gurch 19:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not encyclopedic, probably original research. —Verithrax 21:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to List of esoteric programming languages and add entry there, if some level of notability can be established; otherwise delete. --BillC 21:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with adding it to List of esoteric programming languages and leaving a redirect in place. Not moving the whole article, just an external link there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Verithrax (talk • contribs)
Delete WP:NN, WP:OR, WP:RS Crum375 22:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Vanity page copied-and-pasted from the linked website. —TheMuuj ^Talk 03:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks and/or delete. Article is currently a how-to. Not a copyvio, because it's almost certainly been submitted by the copyright owner. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Skeletor. Ewlyahoocom 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, group with no claim to notability, read like vanity and advertising through and through. Unfortunately, the article also said anyone who deletes it is "very racist." CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyluthan

No verifable info that it is a religion. There isn't a single Google hit. Jeff3000 19:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklinism

Delete There is no such thing as "Franklinism", at least in the sense that its defined on this page. A Google search of "franklinism" and "Bruce Franklin yields only Wikipedia pages. This term is a neologism on the part of the person who created this page, based entirely on a vague interpretation of a class syllabus page he found on the interenet. A Google search of "franklinism -wikipedia" reveals 511 hits as a term referring to sayings in the style of Benjamin Franklin. That justifies an entry in Wiktionary, but not Wikipedia. This article should also be deleted from Romanian Wikipedia. (Note that I've already merged the content of this article into the article Venceremos Organization.) Peter G Werner 20:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --TM 21:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 23:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Tyrenius 01:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Park Estep

I went to Wikify this as part of the wikification drive, but on reading through it I began to doubt its notability or why this ought to be an article. I considered a {{prod}}, but instead chose to put it out for consideration to the world at large. There are extremely few google hits, and I was unable to easily verify the documentary noted in the article. At most, this article could be merged into the article on Ottis Toole. Fluit 20:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ottis Toole. Reyk _YO! 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's enough relevant material here to merge into Ottis Toole, so delete. BillC 21:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Toole article. (There is certainly enough information to merge, since the Toole article seems to be entirely missing information about the Estep murder.) —Steven G. Johnson 22:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ottis Toole as per above. Avalon 08:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sws2b

Not a notable site. Unencyclopedic article. LeonWhite 20:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, doesn't even attempt to explain why the site is notable. —Zero Gravitas 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Zero Gravitas. --BillC 21:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete NN, vanity. Paddles 16:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research among other things. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneskin gargoyle cape

Renominated - it's an orphan article referring to an obscure part of a game Saga City 20:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn video game cruft. --Chris (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a game guide. Wickethewok 21:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The first AfD discussion is here. The above comments in this discussion were added to that page, and I have cut and pasted them here. DarthVad e r 23:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE GAMECRUFT! It's a single item, which, last I checked, is NOT notable! -- Kicking222 23:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gamecruft. Not notable. DarthVad e r 00:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' to World of Warcraft, to discourage recreation and provide some service to the unlikely searcher. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DVD+ R/W 04:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Disses

Is largely POV, full of red links. Not exactly sure if this in encyclopedic. Could be merged into or from other articles. (Yo momma for instance). --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 21:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Large, informative article with lots of potential. Being full of red links is not a reason to delete an article - quite the contrary. Imagine if we deleted all articles with lots of redlinks - we'd get no new content as everytime an editor tried to create a series of articles on a body of knowledge they'd be deleted. THE KING 08:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or maybe merge into other articles. If kept, it certainly needs significant cleanup. Paddles 16:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme WRESTLING entertainment

Non-notable wrestling "federation". "Extreme Wrestling Entertainment" gets 75 Google hits, adding Ohio to that gets 14. Metros232 21:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, more e-wrestling nonsense. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-10 Thunderbolt II in popular culture

Wikipedia is not a directory of film/culture appearances - i.e. an ImDB for technology. The article claims that "the aircraft has been a popular subject in television shows, films, video games, and other media". However, a cameo appearance in one scene does not mean it was "the subject" of the show. Top Gun was about the Tomcat, or at least featured it prominently. War of the Worlds did not feature the station wagon that Tom Cruise drove, the 737 that crashed, or the many pieces of hardware that appeared. Similarly for games where the A-10 appeared in a cut-scene. What, are we to start a list of Hummer H1 appearances in pop culture and list every game and movie it's appeared in?

Regarding video game appearances, they fail the guidelies established by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Popular_culture and discussed Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft_Archive_9#Popular_Culture. Namely, that no attempt should be made to document every appearance, but only significant ones relevant to the aircraft. As a large number of military hardware is typically used in RTS games, its appearance is not particularly significant nor insightful to the game. Nor are arcade simulations with little faithfulness to the actual aircraft (e.g. Ace Combat). Furthermore, since the link between fictional versions is often speculative (e.g. Transformers), it fails under OR.

The only redeemable piece of the current article is the list of simulations - the only pop culture in this case that did indeed feature the A-10.

The A-10 was the main feature in several flight sims: A-10 Tank Killer (1989/90), A-10 Attack! (1995), A-10 Cuba! (1996), Silent Thunder: A-10 Tank Killer II (1996), and Lock On: Modern Air Combat (2003),

That piece only should be Smerged into A-10 Thunderbolt II and the article summarily Deleted Mmx1 21:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please remember that the GFDL prevents us from doing "merge and delete", as doing so would destroy the history of the merged content, which would in turn make the merged article a copyvio. Merges must always leave a redirect. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Finlay, please. That's wrong. It is perfectly feasible to perform a GFDL-compliant merge and delete by merging histories, and the method for doing so is spelled out at [Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves]. It is strongly discouraged because it is a lot of work for the closing sysop, but I cannot figure out how the myth that it is impossible, or forbidden by the GFDL, arose. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supersquishify and merge. It's reasonable for the A-10 article to contain mentions if it in popular culture, but in general these need be little more than wikilinks. We solve the same problem in Area 51#Area 51 in popular culture (which has far more popular culture references) without letting it monopolise the article. One lesson that article teaches is that if you remove pop culture articles, well meaning folks will just add them back in. So mention them briefly in the main article, and point out to those who would expand each reference that said expansion belongs in the relevant pop-culture article, and not in the A-10 article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I made that page to draw junk away because I got tired of cleaning up the edits every night instead of making useful contributions to Wikipedia. Then I unwatched it and voila, out of sight out of mind. I'd rather keep it for the sake of my sanity. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider the same idea for Area 51, but I feared it'd eventually boomerang. This AfD, which is far from novel, is really the inevitable destination of such "sin-bin" articles. I think the "managed sin-bin" approach in Area 51 has worked well, and overwhelmingly new users just add another one or two word entry to the list; most take the hint from the pattern and don't add a whole paragraph. I'd guess A51 is more prone to pop-cult stuff than A-10 (it seems to be in many more games), and roughly it needs modest gardening every two months or so. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Similar cases include Marduk in popular culture and FN P90 in popular culture. Personally, I'd like to see all such lame "object in popular culture" articles deleted, this one included. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking a cue from the recent deletion of the M16 in popular culture page. --Mmx1 07:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Choalbaton 07:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useles fork.--Peta 02:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chmátakov

Delete - non-notable amateur video game. This was on my Watchlist, so I think its a repost, but apparently not...? Anyways, vanity/spam. Wickethewok 21:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the article itself says "This MMORPG is notable of just one reason-the whole game was made by one person", so who are we to argue? —Zero Gravitas 23:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Level 50 dexterity delete per nom. -- Kicking222 23:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, possible vanity. Paddles 16:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is reposted content from Chmatakov-The very first Czech MMORPG. So, a speedy delete is possible. Wickethewok 18:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Tyrenius 01:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadouken

Originally, this article (as well as the others I'm nominating) was supposed to redirect to Street Fighter (series), which I think is what it should remain. However, someone wrote articles, and while I don't doubt their good faith, it opened the door to all sorts of fancruft, and when you trim it all out, there's not much of an article left. I believe they should go back to simply redirecting to Street Fighter (series), rather than simply deleting them. Danny Lilithborne 21:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete May seem important and notable to a lot of people (including me), it just ain't encyclopedic. It is from a fairly simple arcade game from the 90's - if all games must be documented here with such level of detail, geeh...

Keep Why delete it? Some people may have questions on what some moves do. Besides, you don't see people deleting Super Mario, and God knows how long that's been around. Don't hate on Ryu and Ken's moveset. And I don't say this because I wrote one of these pages. I say it because I'm actually contributing useful knowledge. In any case, you're talking Street Fighter 1, which was simple, unlike masterpieces like Street Fighter 3/Alpha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slammenhousa (talk • contribs)
- Comment Street Fighter (series) is not Street Fighter (video game). And you're wrong. Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. You go to GameFAQs to find out how to use moves like Shoryuken; the information is not notable enough for an all-purpose encyclopedia. Worse, the articles as they were before I edited them were extremely badly written and chock full of fancruft, mostly related to the whole "Goutetsu-ryu Ansatsuken" debacle. After editing out all the crufty nonsense, there's really not enough information that warrants an article. (And as for that last remark, don't get me started on the whole debate of whether SF3 is even worth playing.) Danny Lilithborne 00:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, I could easily comment on this. If Wikipedia's not a strategy guide, then how come there's a whole mess on video game characters having THEIR own web pages? Super Mario, Sonic...MEGAMAN! Geez, we might as well just give the ghosts off Pac-Man their own page. What I'm trying to say here is that SOME people actually do care about what some moves do. And how the things done are done. GameFAQs won't ALWAYS give an explanation, ya know.

And Street Fighter 3 is highly regarded as one of the best Street Fighter games of all time. 3rd Strike is rated 2nd on the FAQ pages of the Arcade section of GameFAQs, and most of the reviews were positive. Therefore, any person would disagree with you on the debate of SF3's playability because more people like it than dislike it.

In any case, this is rather irrelevant. My point is, a lot of video game moves have their own sections. And yet you only strive to delete these. For what reason?--Slammenhousa 15:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah. No comment on the SF3 debate (parries suck ;). Anyway, my point still stands. Mario and Sonic have their own sections; are there sections for the Mario Jump and Sonic Spindash? Danny Lilithborne 06:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So because no one's made an article this level deep in another video game series, we should take it away from here? That's like saying "we don't have Bob Smith vs State of Arkansas, so we should delete Marbury vs Madison and Plessy vs Ferguson." Liu Bei 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not for those sections, but almost all of Mario's items have sections, and Chaos Control's got it's own little corner. So, in a sense, yeah, there are.--Slammenhousa 15:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What do Ken and Ryu order when at the Take Away? Hadouken Chips - Hahnchen 15:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not that convinced about the Hurricane Kick or Dragon punch articles though. But Hadouken seems to have found itself in other places in pop culture outside of Street Fighter. - Hahnch e n 15:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The nominator might want to take a look at these articles as well, Shun Goku Satsu and Satsui no Hadou. I actually think the hadouken is more notable than these 2, so you might want to put them up. - Hahnchen 20:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I plan to, but I'm waiting to see what the result of this AfD is first. Danny Lilithborne 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or Merge, if a suitable merge location is found (Ansatsuken was ultimately deleted). There simply isn't any real meat here. Nifboy 20:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to a list of Street Fighter moves, or delete, per Nifboy. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, especially Shoryuken and Hadoken. These concepts are in nearly every anime series made and multiple other video games (Megaman X series for one). The articles show there is a wealth of information on the moves regarding their use and history, and I certainly learned more about the Street Fighter continuity than the main article. Liu Bei 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Hadoken: The Hadoken is well known in gaming circles. I have no opinion either way on the other two articles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hadouken and Shoryuken - Detail noteworthy concepts of the Street Fighter francise that have cross-polinated to other video games, comics, and animation.
Weaker Keep Tatsumaki Senpuukakyu - this concept has enjoyed less success in cross-polination, but does contain a fair amount of information. - CNichols 22:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC) & CNichols 22:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hadoken and Shoryuken Pages - Somebody is being a freaking hater because there are many other video game, oops excuse me..."series" characters that are not nominated for deletion and pretty much contain the same comment, so to all those nominating this page for deletion can just shove it. And I'll have you to know that I contributed greatly to the information on the nominated articles, so if you delete it I'll just re-post it. So why don't you just stop hating and leave the page alone... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanity (talk • contribs) 10:53, May 23, 2006
- Comment Well, this pretty much sounds like he's stating his intent to vandalize Wikipedia, doesn't it? It doesn't look like the vote's going my way, even though I've stated my reasons very clearly. You're not helping yourself. If these pages do get deleted, they should be protected as well. Danny Lilithborne 19:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentWell, must be nice to delete a page, even though your favorite website is Shoryuken.com, although the definition on page page is the same definition in the article on Wikipedia Click here for the reference, That same definition gave you a little insight on what Shoryuken is, but that doesn't matter to you now does it? Man what a loser, and I'M NOT TRYING TO VANDALIZE WIKIPEDIA!!! Just do me a favor a leave those articles alone...--Urbanity 18:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Urbanity[reply]
HA-DO-KEN! Keep. Far too notable to be deleted or merged. - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 02:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also notable as a meme. - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 07:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The hadoken has become notable even outside the Street Fighter games, so it's reasonable for it to have a separate article. Factitious 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely Keep. All three of the articles. The Hadou-Ken, ShoryuKen, and the Tatsumaki Senpukyaku are pop culture. The Fireball, Dragon Punch, and Hurricane kick are staples in fighting games. And virtually any gamer alive knows about them one way or another. I'm not able to verify one way or another whether or not the information given in these articles is fan created, but I do know that there is a lot of information available closer to the source (Japan) that has not and probably will not ever be released officially here. How many Final Fantasy items are never released in the US. They don't believe there is a viable market here and more than likely wouldn't send it over here anyway. The point is I can't perfectly verify all of the information but I can't discount it either. Leave them up. They have viable info. I personally have owned every Street Fighter Strategy guide and most of the official art books that have been released stateside foremost on that list is the Eternal Challenge book and the content of these articles is in line with what is found there. Shun Goku Satsu and Satsui no Hadou being more recent additions to the franchise are a little more debatable but even they are relavent as they are pieces of the characters. Shun Goku Satsu has been parodied and copied all over the game world and Satsu no Hadou is one of Street Fighter's two takes on the Light side and Dark Side of the force (the other being Psycho Power and Soul Power). Perhaps it should be added to a pop culture references to Star Wars article or something. At the least the last two should be merged with Akuma and Ryu. Honestly Shun Goku Satsu and Satsui no Hadou should've been integrated with Goutetsu-Ryu Ansatsuken which would've made sense and made the article more substantial negating any need to delete it. But I've said my peace, please leave these articles be. Rayfire 19:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus Computerjoe 's talk 17:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Craik (second nomination)

This is still a very short article providing little or no context as per my first nomination, and was kept with little debate. The last attempt to add to this article was deemed copyvio and deleted. I just don't see why a one-sentence entry should be kept. Danny Lilithborne 22:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reyk _YO! 22:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just because he was real isn't enough. Fluit 22:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I've now expanded it to an actual article. Figure is plainly noteworthy, and to be honest, I'm kind of surprised that none of y'all took the time to expand it yourself. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 05:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was expanded before but then reverted because of presumed copyvio, although I don't think that was a good reason: as a work of the United States Government no copyright protection is available for it, as provided by 17 U.S.C. § 105. --Lambiam ^Talk 05:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, after reading the (very good) new entry, I'd like to withdraw my nomination. If this is what it took to get good information in this article, then that's fine. Danny Lilithborne 06:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the superb expansion by Hit bull,win steak - Peripitus 13:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep revision. Stifle (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 04:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What The--?!

I can't find any evidence of this comic existing. Is this possibly a hoax? If it does exist, it appears to be very non-notable (not even mentioned on Marvel's site). Metros232 22:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and rewrite. It appears to be a real comic (http://www.hembeck.com/More/Shield1/Shield1Intro.htm), and I think any legitimate Marvel title warrants an article. But the article is very poorly written, and appears to have loads of errors, and needs to be rewritten if it's kept. Carlo 22:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Could be a hoax, and unlikely to be a Marvel comic if it isn't on Marvel's site. DarthVad e r 23:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a series of parody comics Marvel produced from the late '80s to early '90s. See here. Article does need a lot of clean-up. -- Dragonfiend 00:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I believe I have now turned this into a decent stub article. -- Dragonfiend 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's real; I still have one or two issues from when I was a kid. Seems to be a decent stub now. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 05:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's real; The article needs work though -- and perhaps it may be merged (but where?) Zero sharp 08:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very real (and funny) Marvel comic series - I have most of the run stashed somewhere. MikeWazowski 21:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely real and notable. Keresaspa 14:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Metamagician3000 15:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean, per others. - CNichols 22:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as {{nn-club}}. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akatsuki Duelist Clan

probable vanity, non-encyclopedic Greece666 22:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complete bollocks. Danny Lilithborne 22:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. -- Scientizzle 22:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 23:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ALL CLANS! It's 16 people- if every group of 16 or more people had their own WP article, the sheer size of WP would take up half the Internet. -- Kicking222 13:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. RasputinAXP c 13:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian heroes and heroines

Eminently point-of-view; I can find no other nation with a similar article. Outriggr 22:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reconcile this article with the overzealous List of Canadians, to produce a new list or article on "significantly" well-known Canadians (e.g., List of notable Canadians-which currently redirects to the overzealous list). Delete nom'ed article with its current title. Outriggr 22:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Heroism is pretty subjective, and while the majority of people on this list would meet most subjective criteria, a few have me scratching my head. List of Canadians seems to be more than enough. Fluit 22:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list has been around for a long time and is stable. It has been contributed to by Canadians from various regions. I like how it is broadly representative of Canadian culture. I'm sure that must be good. It would be a shame to see it go. We might work on tightening up the criteria somewhat though... Sunray 22:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm really not trying to "delete" this article as such; I am trying to find a way to make a similar version of it work in relation to WP:NPOV policy. I respect the fact that the article is stable and has been around a long time, but I think it needs to be examined by a broader contingent of Wikipedia on this issue. The only way that I could think of to do that was to bring it here. I expect that some changes to the article's name and introductory context would be sufficient to bring it in line. (Also, I think there is an implied WP:Wikipedia-is-not-for-nation-building.) Outriggr 22:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those people are not real. Some of those people- Alexander Graham Bell- are blatantly not Canadian. And WTF is Rene Levesque doing on this list? Something with references would do, like Films considered the worst ever, but for now, Delete this thing, whatever it is. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 23:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The description of Levesque- "integrity, intelligence and resolute commitment to democratic means". Can we BJAODN' this? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 23:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alexander Graham Bell grew up in Canada, lived there more than anywhere else, maintained a residence in Nova Scotia all his life (that was his favourite place on earth), and died there. As for Levesque: Check it out. Intelligent? No Question. Democratic? Easy to see that he championed democratic means and counselled his people to abide by the results of the referendum. He was most certainly a hero. In any case, if you don't like a particular entry, edit it for pete's sake. Oh, and as for reality, that too is subjective. Sunray 23:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, this AfD isn't the place for these kinds of debates, but if this article exists for the purpose of that kind of POV pushing it needs to get zapped. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 23:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article has been around for over two years and is stable. If it has POV problems, it should be edited. This is a wiki.Sunray 00:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, eh? Allow me to first state that I love Canada, and I love Canadians. With that said, this article is inherently POV. Additionally, for what its worth, some of the people listed on the page are truly puzzling. -- Kicking222 00:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too POV to provide encyclopedic value. -- JamesTeterenko 00:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reconcile this article with the overzealous List of Canadians as per above. --AlainV 01:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_heroes. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 05:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, eh? Inherently POV. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, eh? - CNichols 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G7, since all non-trivial edits are by the one author. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFAC

This was one of the first articles I ever created, back in December 2004. As to why I created it in the first place, I'm not so sure. Maybe a lecturer briefly mentioned the group in one of the classes. I don't remember. Maybe I was testing the system. Maybe I wanted to add disinformation, who knows? However, looking back 17 months later at it, it could well be included among my "nihilartikels" that got me kicked off the Wikipedia for a while earlier on in the saison. Either way, this article is not gonna stay here. Won der fool 22:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Wikipedia article is the only specific Google hit for "L'Union Federale d'Ancien Combattants". Zaxem 06:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for coming clean... Good to have you back. --Dakart 09:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrogate

nn forum, the author just happens to be one of the top ten posters there, and has only made one edit on any another article Tango 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 00:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Zaxem 06:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paddles 16:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am just about as big of a Stargate fan as exisits. I have never heard of this. Tobyk777 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three shots from a Zat delete well said Tobyk777.-- Alfakim -- talk 09:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Ton e 13:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metoogle

Neologism. Virtually no Google hits. GregorB 22:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neologism. DarthVad e r 23:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 00:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; sounds like WP:NFT to me. —Zero Gravitas 00:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete as nonsense. Ted 03:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete funny but more of a blog entry than an article. THE KING 08:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, TedE. Paddles 16:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as joke. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-Treme Napping

Probably a hoax, Google count in the single digits. Metros232 22:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a joke. Carlo 22:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. DarthVad e r 23:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - If any of this is true, then I will eat my own face. There is no way that any of it is remotely true, there is no point in waiting for the AFD. How the heck did the cavemen tell us about their x-treme napping competitions? Through cavepaintings? - Hahnch e n 23:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Hahnchen. G y re 23:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deizio talk 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sushicrowd

A quick google search comes up with 561 hits and a quick scan reveals most of them are blogs from the creator and other non-verifiable sources. In the end, I don't think this is notable.-- Sasquatch t|c 22:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sushicrowd is a working open source media label and is notable compared to other registered labels on wiki. 70.95.119.36 23:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC) x.x.164.90[reply]
- Comment: Recommendations of unregistered users are generally discounted in AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article asserts lots of history, but no importance at all. And then there's this comment, posted on the talk page by the user who voted "keep" above, and who does not understand that nobody on WP "owns" articles: "This article is maintained by Sushicrowd media personnel. Any drastic changes to this article with false pretenses without the discretion of Sushicrowd.com is considered vandalism." Thus, the article is not just non-notable, but vanity. -- Kicking222 00:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kicking222. Naconkantari 01:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original article is historically inaccurate, and all attempts to correct these inaccuracies are changed by the original author. Non-verifiable, non-notable, and vain. lord 01:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User's only edits are to this article, its talk page, and the AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article in Sushicrowd is indeed historically accurate as it is compiled by Sushicrowd's staff and administrator. Sushicrowd is an established media label and contains current and project media worthy of notability. Some AfD nominations may be due to an attack on Sushicrowd. Sephihakubi
- Comment: User's only edits are to this article, linked images, its talk page, and this AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kicking222. 24.165.0.149 09:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Recommendations of unregistered users are generally discounted in AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that both users who voted "Keep" on this article are in fact one and the same. lord 06:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since one was an IP edit, it's unlikely to be considered anyway. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lord, you ignorance and bickering is not tolerated here in Wikipedia. I am the other user who voted "Keep" for this article. Any turbulence that you have with the subject or a user here must be taken elsewhere from this discussion. Wonderdioswan 08:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blatant self-promotion of non-existant "record labels" do not constitute valid Wikipedia entries and should be removed in the best interests of maintaining this encyclopedia. lord 10:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least unless properly referenced. Possible hoax. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Kicking222. Paddles 16:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can the "Keep" voters point us to any major media coverage, or other Wikipedia:Reliable sources by which we can verify that Sushicrowd has actually done notable and widely noted things, rather than just being a project where some people have made agreements and made plans to do big things soon? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we can't report on gonna-be-notable record labels or gaming orgs or whatever. Barno 01:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was per AfD. Tawker 04:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet elephant

A business that has recently changed management; of local interest only. FreplySpang 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert, spam, non-notable Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 06:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad trying to pass itself off as an article on the fair trade movement. Paddles 16:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Razors

Run of the mill Counter-Strike clan, no fame, no sponsorship, no CPL. - Hahnch e n 23:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, CSD A7. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ALL CLANS! I really want to write a proposal for deletion criteria, call it "Notability (clans)", and make the content of the proposal as such: "If it's a gaming clan, it gets speedily deleted, no questions asked." -- Kicking222 00:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 per Finlay McWalter and Kicking222, and also the redirect Black razors. —Zero Gravitas 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for reasons already listed. DVD+ R/W 01:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deizio talk 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niklas Laninge

vanity Greece666 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Zaxem 06:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Important figure in the underground music scene. magnusgabell 15:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User's only edit. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever information on Laninge is notable, but most difficult to find. Blippen 16:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User's only edit. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Niklas L. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Peta 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- you can also check the anon comments at the articles discussion page--Greece666 04:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Gilchrist

Vanity article of person not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. FuriousFreddy 23:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 06:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, possible speedy per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deizio talk 21:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ray

vanity Greece666 23:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know very little about dog training, but she seems like she might be a notable trainer. She probably qualifies under author guidelines of WP:BIO [43] [44], she was used as one of the three experts on an episode of the BBC program Faking It [45], and she got a pretty strong mention in this article in The Guardian. There's probably more; that's just what I turned up with a casual search. If someone more familiar with the subject (Hint! Hint!) could add some of this stuff to the stub, we'd have a nice little article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 05:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article also mentions that she's a two-time champion at Crufts (no, it's not what you're thinking). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 06:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly referenced. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be "vanity" as I am not Mary Ray. I'm an amateur dog handler. I looked to see what the Wikipedia had on Mary Ray and was suprised that there was nothing. Hence I added this article. I would have thought being the leading figure in a field or disclipline would make someone notable? Anyway, I'm not particularly bothered if you decide to delete it, I just wanted to counter those points. Cptoatsy 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-checked the article and my initial conclusion was evidently wrong: as it is now the article is a good contribution(still needs editing, wikifying, references though). Cptoatsy: pls have in mind that dozens of articles are nominated for deletion daily and that when i nominated it for deletion it was two lines long. i suggest you create your user page and keep up the good work! best--Greece666 15:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (after the expansion mentioned above.) Needs wikification (and I didn't check who screwed up the links, but some of the redlinks can be easily fixed.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol Im the one who screwd up the links! thx for fixing them up- however, have in mind that red links are not always useless.--Greece666 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest 2006 bookmaker odds

Not really encyclopedic. The main contest article can easily note who the favourites were - A comprehensive listing isn't needed. It's all biased as it only uses certain bookmakers, and it's kind of original research for the fact the article creator used averages from the bookmakers. Wikipedia isn't one authors compilation of odds, sadly. Esteffect 23:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Michalis Famelis 23:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:No original research. -- saberwyn 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. We don't know how the bookmakers' research methodology in order to get those odds. Who ever thought that Finland would win?

Not the bookmakers...

Delete - per nom. Zaxem 06:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, and Wikipedia is not a betting exchange. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mmmm, taste the cruft! Paddles 16:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Corporal 21:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Neurillon 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Uncke Herb!!! 02:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it was correctly compiled data it would still not qualify as encyclopedic content.--Jsone 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I'd settle for a partial merging into one of the Eurovision song contest articles. Why?
- The information is useful, because it provides a source from which what actually happened may be compared with what was expected to happen. A similar thing can be seen in the appearance of entensive poll information on election articles.
- It isn't really original research. On the policy page it is stated that "an edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments". Done well, this table should offer easily verifiable information, and if properly justified in its source selection, can not be accused of advancing a biased opinion. Bookmakers are reputable sources information on pre-competition expectations, because it impacts their business directly if they mess up.
- The betting exchange comment does not apply, because this information is being offered after the competition, where it can no longer change.
- While perhaps uninteresting to american readers, to UK readers, the Eurovision contest was a major media event - this information isn't cruft. --Fangz 17:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that I, the nominator, are English and a "big fan" (if that's possible) of the contest. So the ignorance-of-subject doesn't apply, at least not for myself. Esteffect 19:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gambler's guide. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 17:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE keep The information is invaluable for Eurovision fans. I know of no other place where this information is kept. Dmn € Դմն 11:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your comment is actually an argument/justification for deleting it. WP is not a repository for knowledge or information that isn't recorded anywhere else. Paddles 12:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My comment is actually a vote for keeping it. IMO WP:NOT is used by those who are too lazy to decide whether articles should stay on a case-by-case basis and by those with a lack of vision. Dmn € Դմն 12:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the info is verifiable through adequate citations, much of the info could be merged with the main article, albeit to a limited extent as such information is really encyclopedically unimportant. --Michalis Famelis 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only one who would find this interesting is indeed a bettor. I'll list why I think it should be deleted:
- Pro: 'valuable' information for bettors

       'valuable' information to predict the winners and perhaps give a temporary ranking

- Cons: Statisticly speaking, the bookmakers have 'lost' the battle. They only managed to predict

        the winner 2 times out of 5. And I like to see some references for that.
        Secondly: the bookmakers are out for the money. They don't care who wins, they just want to 
        earn profit. If a lot of people think that Greece will win, they will set a lower odd for  
        them, but that doesn't make Greece a winner. The odds could be wrong, because the 'market'   
        thinks someone else will win.
        Thirdly: why do we need such a page? It could encourage betting and some people will think 
        that the bookmakers are "accurate". And what does it have to do with Eurovision? Predicting 
        the winner? If bookmakers are so 'smart' in predicting the winner, how come they always 
        make a profit? Shouldn't they be bankrupt if they were always right? Come on! Delete it... 
        BETTING IS WRONG!

And making average of bets? How can you make an average between odds!!!!

- - Betting is perfectly legal in my country. Dmn € Դմն 12:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic.--Peta 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USC versus Notre Dame (2005)

I was about to prod this, but I wanted to get opinions on this. I don't know if it's a memorable game from the broader view. Sure, it was one of the highlights of the 2005 season, but I don't know if it's on the level of the Flutie Hail Mary or other memorable games. Metros232 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In the grand scheme of things, this was just a game. This was not Kordell Stewart throwing the ball 75 yards in the air or the band being on the field. It was a great game, but not "forever notable" great. -- Kicking222 00:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but the articles in Category:College rivalry games suggest that at least some of this info might fit well in a future article on the rivalry itself, rather than on any individual game. —Zero Gravitas 01:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a significant enough individual game to justify its own page. Zaxem 06:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if Brady Quinn and ND won, I'd still vote to keep it. This article, with some minor help, could become a great compliment to the 2006 Rose Bowl Game --fpo 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no point in having articles on every college football game --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate Space Travel

Yet another non-notable fan site. Delete AlistairMcMillan 00:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft, no assertion of notability, delete with a staff weapon. —Zero Gravitas 01:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 06:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, etc. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appears to be advertising, some parts violate WP is not a crystal ball. Paddles 16:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ErikWhite 17:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NHL players with 600 goals

I just saw this page today, and it was created about a week ago. However, it serves very little purpose, as there is a List of NHL players with 500 goals, which is also of a higher quality and was created some time before this page to go along with the List of NHL players with 1000 points. As well, that page contains the same basic information as this page, except for the numerical order of the players, which is listed in List of NHL statistical leaders. Wikipedia is not a series a lists, and if this one is kept, than there might as well be List of NHL players with 100 goals, 200 goals, 300 goals... and so on. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the very well-written nom. 600 is a non-notable number, and this would simply be an unnecessary duplication of content. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 500 goals is fine. 600 is just irrelevent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amaas120 (talk • contribs) .
Delete, arbitrary list with arbitrary inclusion criterion. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbitrary, redundant. Paddles 16:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect. Tyrenius 01:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of LEXX episodes: Season 3

Obsolete by List of LEXX episodes. LeonWhite 00:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect, duplicate. LEXX didn't run long enough to make separate season articles terribly necessary anyway. —Zero Gravitas 01:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of LEXX episodes — RJH 17:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. RasputinAXP c 13:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Professionals

Not Notable Group. A Google search of all alias for Choi Professionals comes up with nothing of great note see: Choi Professionals- http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Choi+Professionals&btnG=Google+Search&meta= IACP- http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=IACP&btnG=Search&meta= International Alliance of Choi Professionals-http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=International+Alliance+of+Choi+Professionals&btnG=Search&meta= . Searches returned Wikipedia related pages the search shows links to a SINGLE martial art school owned by founder Rod Cook and own IACP website. Whois search shows all sites registered to Rod Cook. - IACP website lists 3 schools, doesn't seem to have set world on fire - Not an "organisation"?, nor classifiable as "style"?. The wikipedia article contains edits that looks like a case of somebody writing an article about themselves Ownership of articles with a further possibility of WP:VANITY. (search on founder in wiki brought up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rod_Cook Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles) Bacmac 18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, same reasons to delete as Rod Cook Autobiography, JSYD page, etc. - Lazydaisy 22:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If I have read right it appears this article has been deleted before, FEB 3rd. Here is the address (Sry I couldnt work out how to link direct to it) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_3 Choi Professionals ? Bacmac 16:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, an unregistered user "Westnet qld cache IP" has deleted this article - edit summary says: "To save vandalism" not sure what that is supposed to mean, I checked the history and did not find any history of Vandalsim. They must not have read banner properly - I do not know how to revert this or wether it should be.? Bacmac 14:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ?[reply]
Delete looks questionable--Dangerous-Boy 07:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Shin Do

Not Notable Group. A Google search for Ho Shin Do comes up with nothing of great note see: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Ho+Shin+Do&btnG=Search&meta= . Search returned Wikipedia related pages the search only shows links to a small group of 3 schools located around the suburb of Marietta GA. Not an "organisation"?, nor classifiable as "style"?. possibly WP:VANITY? Bacmac 18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google hits (what few there are) seem to be from martial arts groups affiliated with or belonging to the group themselves. Nothing notable outside of this circle. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability Ydam 19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Crustacean. -- Kicking222 21:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't know you could found a martial art in Georgia and call it Korean... — AKADriver ☎ 21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shim Shin-Do

Not Notable Group. A Google search for Shim Shin-Do martial arts comes up with nothing of great note see: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Shim+Shin-Do&btnG=Search&meta= . Search returned Wikipedia related pages the search only shows links to A single school. Not an "organisation"?, nor classifiable as "style"?. The article contains edits that looks like a case of somebody writing an article about themselves Ownership of articles with a further possibility of WP:VANITY. Bacmac 18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of context and references. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Peta 03:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Styles related to Choi Kwang-Do

Not Notable Group. A Google search for almost all these styles / organisations comes up with nothing of great note see: Hup Kwon Do http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Hup+Kwon+Do&btnG=Search&meta= Modern Self Defence http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Modern+Defense+Martial+Art&btnG=Search&meta= Pil Sung Do http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Pil+Sung+Do&btnG=Search&meta= Dynamic Self Defense http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Dynamic+Self+Defense&btnG=Search&meta= Soo Yang Do http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Soo+Yang+Do&btnG=Search&meta= PAGES WITH OWN WIKIPEDIA PAGES: International Alliance of Choi Professionals and all alias http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Choi+Professionals&btnG=Google+Search&meta= http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=IACP&btnG=Search&meta= http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=International+Alliance+of+Choi+Professionals&btnG=Search&meta= Shim Shin-Do http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Shim+Shin-Do&btnG=Search&meta= Ho Shin Do http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Ho+Shin+Do&btnG=Search&meta= . Searches returned Wikipedia related pages the search only shows links to single school locations. Not "organisations"?, nor classifiable as "styles"?. The article contains edits that looks like a case of somebody writing an article about themselves Ownership of articles with a further possibility of WP:VANITY. Almost all of this list appear to be riding on the shirt tails of Kwang Jo Choi's success with his martial art Choi Kwang-Do. A case of the "understudy claiming notability" for assisting notable Professor? A recent discussion with User:BMurray on another article WP:Afd which previously linked to this page prompted me to carry out google searches and look closer at this list and links. I have only listed those I felt were questionable. Bacmac 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree. - Lazydaisy 21:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless properly referenced. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Disagree. These are martial arts related to CKD. Some of these were developed by co-founders of CKD.
- Comment, Samc1, you probably meant to vote to keep the page...Your point, even if it were true, does not address any of the material points listed by Bacmac as reasons for deletion. As for your point - including the CKD website, the websites listed above, Master Koo's website, and articles about CKD in martial arts magazines, I have never seen a reference that makes the claim that CKD (The art of Kwang Jo Choi) was developed / co-founded by anyone other than Kwang Jo Choi. If you can find one, please share the reference. Also, it is good form to sign your votes / comments. - Lazydaisy 17:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They are not organisations, with the exception of Dynamic Self defence which has a few schools in the UK, but is very small in numbers. Dale Miller 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Oh and not even CKD's biggest critic, roger Koo lists anyone other than Kwang Choi as the founder of CKD. There are no co-founders.[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to List of LEXX episodes -- Samir धर्म 02:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of LEXX episodes: Season 4

Obsolete by List of LEXX episodes. LeonWhite 02:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete redirect. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as some content was probably merged there. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of LEXX episodes. — RJH 17:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect this to the place mentioned please Yuckfoo 19:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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