< May 15	May 17 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 obvious hoax, copy & paste of Matthew Edelman, also an obvious hoax. Just zis Guy you know? 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Edelman[edit]

Hoax/vanity/no google hits/vandal ip:[1] Kaisershatner 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:56, 16 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 obvious hoax, copy & paste of Alexander Edelman, also an obvious hoax. Just zis Guy you know? 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Edelman[edit]

Vanity/hoax, no google hits Kaisershatner 15:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not only is it uncited and (for me) unverifiable, it is also utterly implausible - the chances of anyone with the name Matthew Adelman serving under Napoleon are vanishingly small. Just zis Guy you know? 16:01, 16 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 Prodego ^talk 20:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MACRoCk[edit]

Delete non-notable music event. Article fails to establish notability by using citations or establishing verifiability of claims. Strothra 00:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's notable enough. My brother went to JMU and I lived in Harrisonburg briefly, btw, so that might make me biased. But it is verifiable as a local indie rock festival and receives coverage from newspapers each year, not to mention that there are a number of notable bands performing there. Aplomado ^talk 00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Should be tagged for citations and/or rather than Afd. Can see blog or magazine articles at[[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] etc... Event has been running for 9 years, attended by many bands and written fairly widely for a local indie rock festival. Certainly looks verifiable and notable enough Peripitus 01:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tagged it for citations. Aplomado ^talk 01:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peripitus. It needs some cites, but it's definitely a keeper. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as we wait for citations M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, needs citations --☆TBC☆ 05:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable, ciatation needed. --Terence Ong 07:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 18:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete Prodego ^talk 20:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot dog restaurants in Montreal[edit]

The PROD was removed with a "merge" tag added, but I honestly don't see that this would be appropriate as an addition to Montreal. As I stated in the original PROD, Wikipedia isn't a restaurant guide. Joyous | Talk 00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Montreal hot dog, which is a very similar article; whatever happens to this, the same should probably happen to that. — Haeleth Talk 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I would merge the article. Places can be added to an overall article. This artical has some content that could be included into Montreal. Navou ^talk 01:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can't see anything in the article that sounds notable enough to merge into Montreal, either. LjL 01:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, no merge There's nothing in this hot dog article that would be even remotely useful in the Montreal article. Nothing. -- Kicking222 01:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, no merge per Kicking222. If we allow this to stay or even be merged, it would open up a veritable Pandora's box of crufty articles. Aplomado ^talk 01:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no merge, per above. Usrnme h8er 02:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Cedars 03:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely non notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn and original research.--Jersey Devil 03:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete unencyclopedic. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable--☆TBC☆ 05:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is Wikipedia the place to come for recommendations for hotdog restaurants? Are any of these notable establishments? Wikipedia is not the Lonely Planet tourguides website; perhaps recommendations can be placed on the Wikitravel pages for Montreal. They are not encyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Terence Ong 07:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or even BJADON, as I personally found the entry hilarious. Maybe it's just getting too late though... VegaDark 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteJust rambling nothing substantialWoldo 08:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very silly (rambling is a good word) article. Staxringold 11:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete uncyclopedic and non-notable. --Andy123 talk 12:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing worth merging --Scot^t 14:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rewrite. I see no good reason to have a separate article like this.--Jusjih 14:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, can't see a reason to merge. MaxSem 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a sentence or two may be welcome in Montreal. Deffinately an aweful article by itself. Olleicua 17:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Would Montreal really be enhanced by a sentence like "Like every single other major city on the face of God's earth, Montreal is also home to a wide variety of hot-dog sellers, who sell things like hot dogs, at various prices"? I think not. — Haeleth Talk 18:16, 16 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. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dishwasher Studio[edit]

Seems to be linkspam for non-notable website, disguised as editorial material jmd 01:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It gets a surprising number of Google hits, but most appear to be from directories and personal pages. I really can't find a link that would indicate he or the studio is notable. Also, it appears "Gokcen Ergene" is more the subject of this article than Dishwasher Studio. Aplomado ^talk 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. --Andy123 talk 12:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rob 12:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete precisely per Aplomado. Just zis Guy you know? 13:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Just more than 1000 Ghits may not be notable.--Jusjih 14:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If you try to actually view the Google results, it stops after 54 because all the rest are duplicates. What I can't find is any actual commentary on the site from a reputable source, which strongly suggests that this is not something we need an article on. — Haeleth Talk 18:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Because as has been said it is a non-notable website. Also it isn't very NPOV! --Tmorton166 21:26, 16 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. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North bar[edit]

A not particularly notable bar, other than getting a mention in The Observer. Joyous | Talk 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Richardcavell 02:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry, we can't include every bar that happens to win a newspaper award, even if it is a national weekly paper. Grandmasterka 03:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "I think... my opinion only..." WP:NPOV violation for language and where are the winners of the award from previous years? If they have not been otherwise noted as drinking establishments or have since ceased trading then this could be a delete vote. The photographs add nothing to the article, as they could have been taken anywhere.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 07:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity, nn, etc... Ydam 11:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 12:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Rob 12:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable bar. JIP | Talk 14:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree w/ aeropagitica Olleicua 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. - Patman2648 00:32, 17 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 for keeping, but following Abe's merge I've redirected TIN The Incompetent Ninja to Snafu Comics since there is a consensus that it doesn't need its own article. Follow the redirect back if any more information is wanted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIN The Incompetent Ninja and Snafu Comics[edit]

No claim to satisfying guidelines for inclusion of websites. brenneman^{L} 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. brenneman^{L} 01:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete per nom. Claims are incompetent, not the ninja. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Snafu Comics, which is notable--☆TBC☆ 05:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Snafu Comics. --Terence Ong 08:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added Snafu Comics to this nomination. There's no evidence presented that it's any more notable than its Ninja brethren. Clearly if some supporting documentation is provided showing that this satisfies the notability guidelines for websites, I'll change my tune. - brenneman^{L} 08:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TIN I could see deleting, maybe, especially since it only has 20 strips or so, but not Snafu. Take a look at Snafu's Alexa traffic details. 17,105 is very good for a webcomic, and though I suspect Bleedman's doujinshi stuff might be the site's major draw these days, it illustrates Snafu's existence not only as an individual webcomic, but as a collective. That's more than all of DrunkDuck (already survived an AfD with a Keep, by the way). Likewise, its Google results look good, with 236,000 hits, and if you'll take a look at the first few pages of results, they're all about Snafu itself. Yes, the articles could stand some references, but I'm going to take the eventualist position and say that Snafu at least is sufficiently verifiable that some will be added. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Andy123 talk 12:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both. Besides no claims of notability and no reliable sources and no signs of meeting WP:WEB, both articles are created and extensively edited by User:SnafuDave who writes on his talk page that "SnafuDave or Snafu Dave is the most common online user name for David Stanworth, Author of Snafu-Comicsand TIN The Incompetent Ninja." These two articles are therefore clearly WP:VANITY and counter to the official policy that WP:NOT for self-promotion. Also, note that the Alexa ranking for snafu-comics.com is particularly misleading here since there are at least 8 webcomics hosted on that site. -- Dragonfiend 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:VANITY would have applied if this had come up for AfD back in October, but it doesn't now. This is the last edit I'd attribute with any confidence to the author. As far as the fact Snafu exists more as a collective than an individual comic, that's really an argument about what the content of the article should be, not whether or not it should exist at all. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on unreferenced vanity articles: There seems to be agreement that Snafu Comics was an unreferenced vanity article back in October. What changes have been made since then that now raise this above an unreferenced vanity article? The differences between then and now are that some spelling and style errors have been fixed, the article has been categorized, and two sentences have been added ("Currently it has become home to a new series called Training Wheels. Additionally, it has been mentioned that Filibuster Cartoons is hosted on the Snafu Comics Server.") Snafu Comics may now be a categorized and spell-checked vanity article with slightly more unreferenced information ("it has been mentioned?") where all of the titles are now in italics, but it is still an unreferenced vanity article, and as such should be deleted. Merging one unreferenced vanity article (TIN The Incompetent Ninja) into another unreferenced vanity article (Snafu Comics) will not solve the problem that these are both unreferenced vanity articles. Let's delete them. -- Dragonfiend 03:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This is as far as I'm willing to go: merge information about TIN into Snafu and rewrite the result to emphasize its existence as a collective. I just can't justify deleting it with the numbers I'm seeing. It'd be nice if we could add King of Fighters Doujinshi, PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi and Grim Tales from Down Below into it as well, but that's mainly because Bleedman's stuff creeps me out a little rather than for any legitimate reason. Such a move would be strenuously resisted as well. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 08:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge TIN to Snafu. Definitely had its roots in vanity, but now seems to be established as a credible site. Just zis Guy you know? 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I seem to remember a webcomic inclusion guidelines. Something like if it's been around a certain number of years or has a certain readership, it's eligible for inclusion. Has this changed? Olleicua 17:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe you're thinking about the guidelines Eric Burns suggested. We tried to use those for awhile, but we never got much buy-in from the general AfD audience. If you can prove a webcomic has a large readership, that certainly does help, though. For the most part, now we use WP:WEB, which is a relatively good, if sometimes rather vague guideline. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Insufficient reasoning given to delete both. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: We don't need individual pages for every section of the website. It's not so much that the pages are non-notable as that there isn't that much info on each page. Also note the web-traffic data given above. --Tjstrf 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have rewritten the Snafu Comics article with TIN already merged in. Mainly what it needs now is a few references. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:45, 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. On close inspection it was self-contradicting - it was obviously written by three men sitting at the corners of a round table eating vinegar with forks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Arash Irannejad[edit]

This individ is non-notable...a google search did not turn up anything, and it doesn't help that the creator oshares the same name as the music band mentioned in the articleOsbus 22:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete As per nom. MyNameIsNotBob 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Hoax/nonsense. -- Kicking222 02:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete--Renegade-tr 02:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, Usrnme h8er 02:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Irannejad"? Sounds like a joke to me. Searches on the two books in the article (known "worldwide") turn up nothing relevant that I can see. Grandmasterka 03:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This was nominated for speedy deletion as a non-notable biography. Given that it claims that the subject has supposedly written several books as well as his claimed musical accomplishments, it isn't a non-notable biography. It doesn't seem to be verifiable so Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs)
  • Yes it's me. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. -- cmh 04:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any proof for the claims made in the article? WP:BIO violation if none forthcoming.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 09:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --Andy123 talk 12:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 12:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utter nonsense. Rob 12:57, 16 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4th and 26[edit]

I didn't prod this because I think it's borderline, but I don't see this as a play worthy of its own article. It was a difficult play to convert, sure, but was it notable? Not really. Aplomado ^talk 02:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per Jjjsixsix, I guess we can give this article some time. Aplomado ^talk 05:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I should not have retracted the nomination. This debate should be played out regardless of the outcome. Aplomado ^talk 18:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I simply can't decide on this one. On the one hand, it was a huge play that was analyzed over and over and over and over again. On the other hand, it was just one 4th down play, and one that, in the long run, was unimportant- the Eagles still lost in the conference championship game. This isn't to say that other huge plays haven't come from teams that didn't win the Super Bowl, but those plays were things like the Music City Miracle or the Miracle at the Meadowlands- absolutely spectacular, you-will-never-see-this-again plays. A 4th-and-26 play does not fall into that category. So, tough as it is, I'm voting for delete. Barely. -- Kicking222 02:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of notable single plays are already included (The Catch, The Fumble, etc.). The fact that the Eagles did in fact sell shirts making reference to the play also helps. --Cheapestcostavoider 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think comparing this play to either the Catch or the Fumble is a huuuuge stretch. Aplomado ^talk 04:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't. Kicking says it doesn't matter because the Eagles still lost, but then the Broncos still lost the Super Bowl after the Catch and the Fumble, and the Titans still lost the Super Bowl after the Music City Miracle. If the Eagles don't make a play which required them to get a quarter of the field's worth of yardage, they lose. Simple as that. That at least ranks with the Tuck Rule as a play worthy of Keeping. -- Grev 04:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: For whatever it's worth at this point, it's certainly up there with the River City Relay, and not only was that not a playoff game, but the Saints didn't even win. --Cheapestcostavoider 18:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You rank this play up there with "The Catch"? Seriously?? Still I suppose I can buy keeping the article in that it was notable for Eagles fans, at least for now. Aplomado ^talk 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's too recent for comparisons, quite honestly. It is, however, in football folklore now, kind of like the tuck... we just need to see if it stays in there over an extended period of time. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 04:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and relist in a few years (yes, years). -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 04:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep we seems to have a few of these single play articles (Hand of God goal f.x.), I agree with Jjjsixsix let relist in a couple of years and see if anybody remembers the play then. --Eivind^t@c 05:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've come to agree that there is some claim to notability here, but for the record I think that some of you don't fully understand the significance of plays like the "Hand of God," a very famous, oft-replayed and controversial goal. A similar claim can be made about the "Immaculate Reception." The Catch and the Fumble, likewise, have their place etched in sports lore. There's Doug Flutie's Hail Mary, a last second 50-yard prayer that is miraculously caught and wins the game. There's The Play, a game won between two heated rivals based on a kickoff return featuring five laterals. This, on the other hand, is simply a long fourth down conversion in a non-championship, conference or otherwise, playoff game. It was impressive and probably notable as it relates to Eagles fans, but I don't think it's at all accurate to compare it to these other plays. Aplomado ^talk 06:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well worded article about important event in Green Bay Packer history. If innumerable anime characters get articles, this decisive play should have one, too. --BaronLarf 05:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, of interest to fans of the team only. I vote to delete the anime characters, too, whenever I get the chance. Vizjim 09:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep, I would delete as above but I think anime characters are a lost cause. My main quam with this is that it's poorly written and unclear. Some pictures and copyeditting would really help it but I think it's notable enough. Olleicua 17:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no way this can be compared to the Hand of God, which changed the outcome of a world competition and led to significant international tension. This play is not widely known outside fans of a single sports team. Therefore, it is not encyclopedic material. — Haeleth Talk 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If it is kept, would someone please add some references or citations of sources? It has been tagged with ((Unreferenced)) since February. [7] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Several football plays that only have significance to one or two teams have their own articles on Wikipedia (Red Right 88, The Play, Music City Miracle, The Miracle at the Meadowlands, etc). Kirjtc2 19:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Play has significance only to Cal or Stanford fans? I think you are mistaken. Aplomado ^talk 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tell me how it would affect an Ohio State fan. And even if it does have a more wide-reaching effect than the others, explain what significance Red Right 88 has outside of Cleveland, 25 years after the fact, or the Miracle at the Meadowlands (a regular season game, no less) has outside Philly or New York (the Eagles lost their first playoff game while the Giants didn't make it at all).Kirjtc2 20:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question is not whether it affects an Ohio State fan, the question is if it's a notable play outside of a small group of fans. The Play is arguably the most famous play in college football history. Aplomado ^talk 23:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, but what about Red Right 88, which was not only a single play, but one that didn't even work, for a team that lost the game? --Cheapestcostavoider 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'd say that was significant to the team's history. It's possible I've misunderstood the level of significance of "4th and 26" to Eagles fans, so I'm not against keeping this article now. Aplomado ^talk 21:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename because the title is unhelpful. Peter Grey 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep since the shirts kind of add notability, although as a Packers fan I didn't really remember this until I read the article. BryanG 21:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keap, but I wouldn't oppose a merge into NFL playoffs, 2003-04 or perhaps the Packers or the Eagles articles. Cool3 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This really should be covered in the game or team article and not as its own article. Vegaswikian 23:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and/or rename, as it was a significant play in its own right on grounds that a "4th and 26" was a rarity in Gridiron football. User:24.271.143.256 03:56, 19 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, as per both consensus and the relavancy of the arguments. Proto||type 09:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of proper nouns containing an exclamation mark was List of proper nouns containing a bang[edit]

List of proper nouns containing anything is a poor start. In this case it's a loooong and still incomplete list of names containing an exclamation point. As far as I can tell there is no especial reason for choosing an explamation point over any other punctuation mark. A jumble of names, book titles, TV shows etc., which takes no account of the recent vogue for stuffing a shriek on the end of TV programme names. I call listcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think, first and foremost, the criteria for keeping a list like this should be based on its utility. What useful purpose can this list serve? Pondered and rejected. If someone can state reasonable bases of usefulness, I'm open to changing my vote.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, following Fuhghettaboutit. --Jadriaen 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This list provides a unique insight into an aspect of pop culture that has been present since the invention of film. Using an exclamation point is nothing new, as evidenced by Oklahoma! and many others. It is an exciting look into the history of entertainment, which is not possible to find using Wikipedia's search engine. GilliamJF 23:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you trying to sell something? Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not meaningful or useful. SCHZMO ✍ 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as totally useless. Brian G. Crawford 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete •Jim62sch• 23:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but at least this one isn't as bad as List of songs whose title constitutes words cosequencing the first letters with the words. BigDT 00:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete!. Not the worst article ever.... but close. Who is going to search for this? · rodii · 00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Nintendude list". Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First write an encyclopediac article on the use of exclamation marks in proper names, of course adhering to WP:V, WP:RS, and most importantly WP:N. Then create the list and link to that article at the header. GRBerry 02:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nintendudecruft. (Totally useless list.) Grandmasterka 05:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems useful to me.  Grue  09:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, looks like Nintendudecruft but isn't, it was Alphonze this time. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete first of all, it's called an exclamation point, not a bang. Secondly, it made me want to bang my head againstmy computer monitor. --Bachrach44 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Until wikipedia has a decent search engine to look for this cultural phenomenon in other articles, then this list is a useful reference point. Buttle 03:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Until it is possible to search by regular expression in Wikipedia this list will be useful for researchers of onomastics and typography. There could also be similar lists of proper nouns containing asterisks, question marks, etc., or proper nouns beginning with a lowercase letter - an interesting type of word in English Grammar, since proper nouns in English usually begin with an uppercase letter. Alphonze 06:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alphonze is the original author of the article. -- Kicking222 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete!--blue520 02:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't even think I have to explain the rationale for voting for deletion. It's self-evident. -- Kicking222 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless listcruft. Also, I think the previous AfD had a pretty clear consensus, does it really need to sit for another 5 days? --Hetar 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Renegade-tr 02:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Usrnme h8er 02:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pointless. We don't need lists for everything, do we? WarpstarRider 02:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No good reasons for deletion have been advanced. While terribly dull, this is a perfectly encyclopedic list article. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per everbody above. As for Tony's observation that no good reason for deletion has been advanced, how about significance? It's used as a criteria for Speedy Deletes, I think it's applicable here.--WilliamThweatt 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cedars 03:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't expect to find many "list of X with attribute Y" articles when I thumb through an encyclopedia, and yet this is an exotic example of one. Sorry that we don't have a less offensive term than listcruft, but that's precisely what this article is. Vslashg (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I doubt even a dictionary would want this. --Carnildo 03:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not an indiscriminate collection of info. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 04:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the good reasons above. To Vslashg, maybe "listshit" might fulfill your wish? Copysan 05:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who on Earth is going to look for a list like this, and what would it tell them if they found it?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is actually a bit funny, but belongs in a dictionary. The general phenomenon of using an exclamation mark in a proper noun could could be the object of an interesting Wikipedia article (along with a few noteworthy examples), and I wouldn't be surprised if some linguist has studied it somewhere. u p p l a n d 07:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless. The exclamation mark on 'Allo 'Allo! isn't part of any 'phenomenon', it's part of "'Allo" being a greeting. And please don't Transwiki, Wiktionary is not our dustbin. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• De!ete. The vast majority of these are actually incorrect, at least insofar as I understand what makes a proper noun, and what the word "containing" means. And pointless. And listcruft. And silly. And an indiscriminate collection of information. And this isn't a new phenomenon, or part of pop culture - just think of Westward Ho!. Vizjim 09:13, 16 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Carmen[edit]

Unneccessary, with a list of pieces in the Carmen article itself. No encyclopaedic value, being merged with the Carmen article. --Alexs letterbox 01:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This AFD was begun by the original author of the page, who then changed his or her mind and prodded it. The prod tag was removed, but since this AFD subpage exists, the AFD should be considered active. I am listing it now. Chick Bowen 15:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with the comment by Alexs letterbox on the talk page "It is really more of a guide to the opera, rather than an encyclopaedic article".--blue520 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikisource...then Redirect to Carmen. This could have been done boldly without the AfD...--Isotope23 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images would have to be moved to commons too, of course. I'll get to this eventually if no one else does it first, but I'm not familiar with Wikisource's way of doing things. Chick Bowen 17:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, Transwiki the text to Wikisource and the images to Commons, then redirect to Carmen. --Sherool (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki. Could be a very useful resource, and belongs on some Wikimedia project, just not here. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked over the projects, Wikisource is not the place for this at all. b:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks allows any instructional resource within the limits of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V (all of which Wikibooks follows too), or at least any instructional resource on at least a very slightly academic topic (Jimbo's cracking down on videogame manuals, from what I hear, but this is undoubtedly fine). s:Wikisource:What is Wikisource? excludes original writings by contributors. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki the text to Wikisource and the images to Commons, then redirect to Carmen, as per Sherool. Vizjim 09:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikisource does not accept things written by its contributors. Please see s:Wikisource:What is Wikisource?, which I linked to above. The only place for this on Wikimedia is Wikibooks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, delete. Vizjim 14:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, what about Wikibooks? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please be sure that it violates no copyright before transwikiing. Wikisource has received some transwikied articles that have turned out to be copyvios.--Jusjih 14:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (admin at multilingual Wikisource and English Wikisource)[reply]

All the text is my own, and no sources were used in its preparation. --Alexs letterbox 21:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete belongs more in publications like Wordsworth Book of Opera, but may be a useful resource. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever you do, don't transwiki to Wikibooks. Anything else is fine with me. Thanks. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, why? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikibooks is for textbooks... not just Wikipedia's junk they don't want. Thanks. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This would be suitable for inclusion in a textbook for a course on opera, surely? Those include at least partial listening guides for at least some operas, to judge by my music textbook. Of course, the book fragment would probably sit for ages without anyone actually trying to format it as a textbook and add other required things (like an introduction and actual discussion of opera generally), but it's still potentially part of a useful textbook. m:Eventualism, anyone? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Commnent If no suitale Wikimedia project accept this kind of thing then delete it, but it seems like a waste to delete if it can be transwikied somewhere, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia so delete if all else fail (are there aany GFDL compatable Opera wikis on Wikicities?). --Sherool (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks to me like Wikibooks is the place for this. It will have to be reformatted, of course. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the wish of the original author of the page. He can submit it to another wiki site if he feels like it.—Tokek 09:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not that fussed really on what happens to it. If room is found for it somewhere, I will finish the page; if not, c'est la vie. --Alexs letterbox 06:24, 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 06:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cutline[edit]

• Delete after merging what is possible into Testing. The meaning of the word is generic. It is hardly a testing-specific term. It is actually used in exactly the same way for any task prioritizing/scheduling. 97% of this small text makes sense in the context of general article, and the word itself is good only for wiktionary. Mukadderat 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: was just transwikied to Wiktionary. TheProject 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Adrift* 16:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Gyre 02:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge Ydam 11:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Now that I took a look at the nominator's vote, I want to point out that if there's any content merged into Testing, this article cannot be deleted and must instead be a redirect to preserve GFDL. If there's no content merged, there's no problem with deleting it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this appears to be a local usage only. User's sole ocntribution, and I seem to recalla series of other software testing neologisms back around December but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, after several years as a developer and working still in a software house I know not of this term - which doesn't mean it ain't real, but all you get here is my opinion. There are at least two more common uses for this term, one is a Photoshop plugin, the other is a standalone software product for cutting vinyl graphics. Just zis Guy you know? 12:58, 19 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 06:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Squares[edit]

Alright, I'll bite. I'm not sure, but I don't think this group is notable. There's nothing in the article I can see that meets WP:MUSIC, despite the prolific number of albums. (It usually takes much more than three years to become notable, in my experience.) Note that this is definitely not the same "The Squares" that was speedily deleted before. Grandmasterka 03:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tough to Google a name like that, but searches in conjunction with "Mike Mahon" and "No Lizard" turned up less than 10 results each, so I think this is a delete. Aplomado ^talk 04:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can not see any thing that meets WP:MUSIC. For example the albums seem to be self releases (the latest album can be found here in mp3 format). Basically fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:MUSIC.--blue520 05:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This reads as the biography of a busy pub band - how many of those are there? The EPs released don't appear to have troubled the charts - WP:Music violation.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - well, 2 comments. 1) Self-releasing music shouldn't be a criteria for deletion in itself; it's increasingly a choice that artists make, especially in alternative and experimental musics. 2)If this article wants to stay, it's best chance is to demonstrate that they are a regular touring act as per WP:MUSIC rather than just doing the local pub circuit. Ac@osr 08:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Ydam 11:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above as not notable. DarthVader 12:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if only for consistency. This is a local pub band who have only released records themselves (seemingly not on an indie label), no discernable notability, and doesnt meet any of the wp:music criteria...Amists 14:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Official website" uses a freebie my.tk domain, band has a MySpace page linked in the article, allmusic.com hasn't heard of them. Looks non-notable to me. ergot 15:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You're so square, baby I don't care. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 19 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. Sango123 (e) 19:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ShoW[edit]

Prod, but I feel we should have a debate. Prod reason was: "The first Google mention of this item combining terms "the show" and "michigan state" is number 48. I find it difficult to find a reliable mention. Is this notable?" from User:Matthew Platts, who I have notified. I deprodded and brought it here because I find it plausible that The ShoW is the longest-running college sitcom, as the article claims (and as their website claims), and if this can be verified, it seems like a reason to include it. Even if that can't be verified, if the show was created in 1988, that's a really long-running show. Still, I remain neutral. Mangojuice^talk 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Even if verified I don't think it's sufficiently notable. If anyone can think of applicable Wikipedia policies with which to qualify this article that would help, but I can't think of any. I'm thinking along the lines of things like university performance groups, theatre companies, sketch groups, bands, etc and I just don't think longevity and having a few former members go on to (marginal) fame is enough to establish notability. --TM 14:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a "student-produced situation comedy" - unless reliable evidence can be found that this is the next Cambridge Footlights. Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 19 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 06:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teddie[edit]

The page is incorrectly named, the Mr. Bean page already has more information about Teddy and the text is simply copied from the Mr. Bean homepage. There is not enough information to justify keeping this as a separate article, unfortunately. Bob 15:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete stupidness. Arniep 01:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to mr. bean, or maybe make it a page about people named teddie. Anyways this info doesn't go here M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 06:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 16:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to teddy bear Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 19 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. Rje 14:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UKonian[edit]

This article is WP:OR and is also a Protologism Mal 04:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can find sparse usage of the term on the internet, but at best this is a transwiki to Wiktionary, I think. Aplomado ^talk 04:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to English people or something similar. - Richardcavell 05:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Presumably the reason for coining a term such as "UKonian" is that "English people" is totally inaccurate for this purpose. --Ryano 10:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which makes no sense considering the perfectly legitimate "British" term exists. *shrugs* --Mal 06:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced, unsourced proto/neologism. If references and a citation of usage in popular media can be provided then it can be transwikied to Wiktionary.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete protologism and WP:NOT for those and not a dictionary either. UKanian is much more common, but even that would only be a dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOT a dictionary. I'm British and I've never heard the term before Ydam 12:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete protologism. Vizjim 12:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. TheMadBaron 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Sincerity[edit]

Though the article is cleverly coloured at the start to look like a serious article (e.g. cites of legitimate books like Scarry & Steiner} it seems to be largely a hoax, & the article eventually devolves into a fart joke. The history of the article shows that it seems always intended as a joke (rather than having been vandalized). ND 20:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Actually if you do a search on google there's plenty of stuff on it, having checked the history of the article I'd say it's clearly been vandalized: the initial post seems pretty sensible. Its subsequent edits that have pushed the page beyond the pale, however the amount of discussion around the issue on the internet would argue for its inclusion. Driller thriller 21:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking a bit through the history I'm wondering if the best thing is to simply revert to the very first version of the article? It looks to me like the problem is that the article started off as a serious piece on one topic (the mooted "New Sincerity" in the wake of 9/11) & then got expanded via a completely different topic (a radio show), & then the latter seems to have attracted some jokers (fans of the radio show? grad students with nothing better to do?) who have completely overrun the original, well-intended article with piles of nonsense. -- I'm not very impressed with the person who's posted to the Talk page that the article deserves preservation because it's "brilliantly retarded". ND 04:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - I don't think anyone's suggested that this is original research. Driller thriller 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I just did. Stifle (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I am actually writing a paper on this at the moment, and I assure you there is fair basis for New Sincerity to be included, but the article has certainly been vandalised and changed beyond the truth of the matter. Although many people claim to be the originator of New Sincerity, the phrase has been around for almost a decade in describing the work of director Wes Anderson and more recently people like Jared Hess. I think there has been enough discussion about this in various essays and magazine articles to warrent it's inclusion. (Hippo Shaped)15:22, 06 May 2006
  • If you're writing a paper, you'll have no problem citing sources for this phrase.

Onion: Does it bother you to be potentially pegged as the head of a new movement? I know there’s a Film Comment article that mentions you as part of something called ‘the new sincerity.’ Do you pay attention to any of that?

Wes Anderson: Well, I don’t know. Who else is in ‘the new sincerity?’

Onion: I don’t know. I think it’s just you at this point, and they’re waiting for people to line up behind you.

Wes Anderson: Oh, well, I’m not waiting for that line to form, and I don’t expect it to. I don’t know if there’s ever going to be much of a movement in that direction. It sounds like one that could be boring for a lot of people.

It appears Anderson himself doesn't know anything about it. http://www.coldbacon.com/movies/wesanderson.html

* Strong Oppose Well that interview was from 1999, and references the 'Film Comment' magazine article from January that year. It was around that time the phrase started so of course he didn't know. Whether or not you agree on who invented the phrase or when, the phrase describes something not described in any other way and has been used in a variety of places over the last 7 years. I'd fix this article myself, but i've never really written an article in the Wikipedia style before, but if I have time I will give it a go. Almost the whole thing needs to be reorganized and rewritten, but not deleted. (Hippo Shaped) Re:Above(17th May 2006)

• Delete. Unsourced neologism. -- GWO
• Comment The concept doesn't seem to be entirely made up for Wikipedia: [8]. E.g. the first draft of the article seems genuine enough, no fart jokes there. I don't know about notability though, and the lack of sources is unfortunate. Weregerbil 13:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, quite a few Google hits, although there are zero for New Sincericists, so the last few sentences could probably go. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: After two full listings on AfD no one has found any sources? At this point, its safe to say its unverifiable. --Hetar 06:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This search shows that the term is around and is applied on many blogs etc to the work of certain directors. Equally, it shows no academic or mainstream media mentions that I can see (only got to page 3, admittedly). So, this is more of a meme-type thing. Since none of the artists who've had the label attached to their work appear to know about it or encourage it, the question is whether there is anything real here, or just a phrase that sounds good and has spread across the internet a bit. Vizjim 09:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced, unverifiable. If someone knows about the concept: trim the article mercilessly and leave only stuff to which you can provide verifiable reliable sources. Weregerbil 10:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - can someone tell me how an anon started this article?!! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 11:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anons used to be able to start new articles until 2005-12-16. Heck, George W. Bush was started by an anon :-) Weregerbil 12:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah ha, learn something new yada yada yada :). Thanks mate, appreciate the response. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 14:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: . . . which plays upon Judith Butler's notion of citationality and the body, in order to consider beauty and intersubjectivity as outcomes of the body's performance of itself. I'll have some blue cheese dressing with my word salad, thanks. Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Hasn't this nonsense been killed via AfD at least once before? -- Kicking222 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a term that's been around for several years and has been appropriated by a few different groups. I just think it needs cleaning up. Wells 298 10:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's a term with enough history and meat that an article is useful. The article as it stands now isn't that great, but it'll improve with time. -- Brett day 08:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Weregerbil. Zaxem 11:48, 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian weblogs[edit]

Delete. WP is not a directory or web index. A complete list would therefore be non-encyclopedic. An incomplete list is not useful. cmh 04:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of links. No evidence of notability provided for any of the blogs.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If list of weblogs doesn't exist then I see no reason why this should. Ydam 12:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 14:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Scot^t 14:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom--Jusjih 14:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can see it now--Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia directory of weblogs. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:37, 17 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. Sango123 (e) 19:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio SHARK[edit]

This fails Wikipedia's policy on the notability of products. A quick Google search shows mostly reviews and simple product listings. And the Radio SHARK certainly has not become a genericized trademark. joturner 05:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Do published independent reviews in a major magazine (e.g. MacWorld) not count? The notability guidelines seem to indicate that they do ("This criterion includes published works in all forms..."). The Griffin radioSHARK is a well-known, widely-used and easily-recognised product. --Canley 06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The policy on the notability of products you cite don't seem to exclude reviews. So on the basis of the nomination, I vote Keep. Vizjim 11:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per above, but I think the article is just a bit advertisement-y. -- Kicking222 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Kicking222 M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well written article about a notable product. TheMadBaron 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote. The article title does however, sound similar to Radio Shack. --Nintendude ^{userpage | message} 09:49, 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 Prodego ^talk 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gornography[edit]

Neologism. Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As nominator. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator: neologism. joturner 05:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, unreferenced proto/neologism. If sources and a reference for usage in popular media (newspaper columns, magazines, etc) can be provided then it may be a candidate for Wiktionary.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --MarsRover 06:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 12:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A whopping 157 GHits (37 unique) says this is a word whose time has not yet come. Fan1967 14:46, 16 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. -Doc ^ask? 19:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Between the buns[edit]

Three restaurants in the South Bend area barely qualifies as a chain. They got good local food reviews, but I don't think that merits an encyclopedia article. It's bordering on a WP:SPAM violation and I don't think it meets Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Scientizzle 20:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. nn. Fluit 22:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. The "best of" articles are incredibly common in any town with a newspaper. ScottW 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Yellowikis. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:CORP violation - too small as a company to be notable for a WP article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. Vizjim 09:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 12:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Rob 13:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:42, 16 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 07:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cason Farmer[edit]

• Delete Non notable personality mostly on websites. Mopper ^Speak! 05:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's hardly salvageable. - Richardcavell 05:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable personality, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not encyclopedic. Rob 13:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn & unencyclopedic. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't belong here. Maybe on a FS2004 wiki, but not here. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 16:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not Notable. rhmoore 20:21, 17 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 07:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wager island[edit]

spam, non-notable, fails WP:CORP, etc. Rklawton 06:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - for sure. - Richardcavell 06:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Alexa rank of 839,396, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Website advertising. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, product ad. Rob 13:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious advertisement. Note the creator's own licence at the top. At least he didn't write "all rights reserved". JIP | Talk 14:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.
• delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 06:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 07:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fazeshift[edit]

Band from Syracuse, NY. Only one EP which was independent, so I see nothing that helps this qualify with WP:MUSIC. --Hetar 06:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:Music violation, only one self-produced EP and no contract, notable members or national tours mentioned. Better off on Myspace until notability criteria satisfied.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (WP:MUSIC)--blue520 08:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. DarthVader 12:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 766 Ghits cannot be notable.--Jusjih 15:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How cute, they have a MySpace page. Delete; delete the photo, too. ergot 15:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; I'm beginning to feel that having a Myspace page should be prima facie grounds for speedy delete of a band as NN. RGTraynor 16:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only 766 Ghits? even I have as many (or about). Also, I think RGTraynor's argument may have merit, but what if, say, Paris Hilton decided to create a MySpace? M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Heh, if that happened, that would be one thing, but right now, IMHO, a subject with a Myspace page is the new corollary of Geogre's Law. RGTraynor 18:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Also, take them to the beach and make them eat something with iron in. They don't look well. TheMadBaron 16:49, 17 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 07:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okama[edit]

Japanese dicdef that has little hope of ever being expanded. Article hasn't changed since it was created nearly a year ago, and to my knowledge there's little to say about the etymology of the term (pretty straight forward: pot (okama) - anus - gay man) or its use (currently a pejorative in most cases, more or less equivalent to faggot). Exploding Boy 06:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki (if it hasn't been already) and delete per nom. It's doubtful that any future expansion will ever occur. -- Kicking222 15:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Haeleth Talk 18:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing more than a dicdef which I cannot see ever being expanded. ShizuokaSensei 03:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though that South Park episode about the "Okama Gamesphere" is just that much funnier to me now. — AKADriver ☎ 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dicdef. TheMadBaron 16:53, 17 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 07:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Bananas on the Moon[edit]

Non-notable song. Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete [9] CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 12:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Ydam 12:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, ! --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 19:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 16:55, 17 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. Rje 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer[edit]

WHEAREAS:

This is a dictionary definition. Examples of usage are part of normal dictionary definitions in extended entries in high-end dictionaries.

Any attempt at taking this article beyond a dictionary definition violages WP:NOR.

User:badlydrawnjeff, a known hardline inclusionist, has done his best at bringing this article in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and has failed, although his insulting edit summaries are noted.

This is a vandal magnet. Brian G. Crawford 07:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BE IT RESOLVED that this article be deleted. Brian G. Crawford 07:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep bad faith nomination based solely on a personal attack against badlydrawnjeff done in the name of the third AfD on this article all in recent memory. Wikipedia is not censored and this is a notable urban legend. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what insulting edit summaries? This? [10] How is that insulting? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes there were two previous AFDs. Yes, both ended with "no consensus". Yes I endorsed the result on DRV. But there are an awful lot of sexual slang terms lying around, and I don't this one is so common, so significant or of such interest that it needs an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn dicdef. Vizjim 09:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Possible Keep. Sourced, can still be expanded with a little bit of effort, and, at this point, this nomination does not appear to be in good faith. Not a single effort has been made by "hardline deleitionist" Crawford to expand this. After THREE AfDs that failed to come to a deletion consensus, and after noting that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, along with a platinum-selling rock music act and various television shows have more than noted its existence, this shouldn't even be a question. Quit it, for the love of pete. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an exaggeration of the provided source. The term was one of a multiple mentioned in a transcript, included in an exhibit, of a government report. No signficant government official (to my knowledge) has made special mention of the term. The radio personalities are the ones "validating" the term, not anybody in government. I won't vote on this, due to my distaste for re-AFDs. But let's not pretend the "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES" is behind you. I don't think we want to be tossing in every term that's mentioned in a transcript, included in an appendix, of a federal government document. --Rob 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. It was noted as an obscene comment by the FCC, as referenced in the transcript. If it's good enough for government work, it's most certainly good enough for wikipedia. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We must be looking at different places. The only source given in the article is here. This is *not* a transcript of an FCC proceeding. This is a transcript of a radio show, included as an attachment to an FCC document. Nobody from the FCC make *specific* reference to a "Cleveland steamer". The people using the expression are labelled MV1, MV2, MC3, MC6 identified as "cast members" and callers of the radio show Deminski & Doyle Show. So the *only* thing this proves is that the term was used *one* day on one radio show. The FCC discussed the transcript in *generall* but did nothing to "note" a specific term. Also, the version before my edit, implied the term was mentioned in a hearing, but there's no proof of that. --Rob 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while I and my nearest and dearest are unlikely to be giving this a whirl in the near future (viz. Alabama hot pocket, Blumpkin et. al.), I believe that notability is shown in this current incarnation of the article. I will not call this a bad faith nomination, but I do believe that if the article passes this AfD, there might not be much benefit in raising it again in the near future. This is a cultural meme, above and beyond being a dicdef, and as such is worthy of inclusion here. Colonel Tom 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy Keep per CanadianCaesar and badlydrawnjeff. --TM 14:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per badlydrawnjeff and the FGotUS (so this is what the tax money goes for?). The article is well sourced. AnonEMouse 14:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, dicdef. Would not oppose a transwiki to wiktionary, if it isn't already there. ergot 15:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above. Very well-written, very well-sourced article. It might be overly lewd, but it deserves its place in an uncensored encyclopedia. -- Kicking222 15:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, per above. Bad faith nom. Good to have you back, Bri! Badgerpatrol 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete turdcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 16:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Oreo man 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Coprophilia. As the nominator has already tried to do, being summarily reverted for no good reason. The article simply doesn't say anything that couldn't be covered more appropriately and usefully by a paragraph there. — Haeleth Talk 18:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually a rather incorrect statement regarding the merge request. I reverted the merge for two reasons: 1) lack of discussion meaning lack of consensus, and 2) one of the worst merges I've ever seen where almost none of the information from the article being merged was inserted into Coprophilia. I still disagree with a merge, given the notability of this subject. Ask 100 people - more will know what a cleveland steamer is than what "coprophilia" is, let alone pronounced. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Just because something can be targeted by vandals does not mean that we should not have articles on it. Any minority or political page is a target for vandals as well. Shall we get rid of those as well? If there are other pages that also pertain to this act then they should be merge. DanielZimmerman 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm generally opposed to re-AFDs. But it seems the *extreme* lack of reliable sources, has led to the blatant misuse and twisting sources to say things the facts don't support. Pretending this term has some sort of backing by the "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES" is patently absurd. The only thing worse than not providing a reliable source, is trying pretend you have one, when you don't (or mischaracterizing it). There seems to be unwillingness to properly state what sources actually say. --Rob 00:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable sexual UL. I would cite double jeopardy as I did for the AfD on Dirty Sanchez the other day, but it appears that it doesn't attach in this case. Haikupoet 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This was a valid article when I didn't know what it meant, especially since it's used in Family Guy those that encounter it on such a popular show may question it's meaning.--GenDeathRaiser 02:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this kind of...stuff...really doesn't belong on wikipedia. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a worthwhile contribution to knowledge. Scranchuse 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is the third time in six months. Obviously notable and well-documented term, pretty clearly bad faith nomination. --Cheapestcostavoider 03:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepNaFedaykin
• Delete Notable enough for Wiktionary (where it already exists) but not enough material to justify an article. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is just vile. I've half a mind to start advocating for morality standards for content... Or quite possibly, I just have half a mind. Nevertheless, I am disturbed that such articles exist and cannot find any defence, free speech or not, for their continued existence. --Agamemnon2 11:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vile, yes, but Wikipedia is not censored. WP:NOT. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is more than a dicdef. No valid reason has been given for deletion. TheMadBaron 17:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Urbandictionary is the place for dictionary definitions of scatalogical slang. -- GWO
• Very Strong Keep This is a bad faith nomination for deletion which includes a malicious personal attack by Brian G. Crawford on User:badlydrawnjeff. Despite many attempts to sabotage this article in order to get it deleted there is still no legitimate reason for this nomination. Again, Very Strong Keep --Apyule 16:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Bad faith nom, User Conduct RfC filed. -- backburner001 16:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - bad faith nomination. Kukini 18:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All this article is, is a slang definition. I can't see this being able to expand beyond being a mere dicdef, and a "list of pop culture references" is not enough for this to warrant an encyclopedia article. WarpstarRider 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not the urban dictionary. Stifle (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Possible Delete. It's a dictionary definition, and WP:NOT a dictionary. Its source is not useful: an appearance in a radio transcript means nothing: WP:NFT extends: Wikipedia is not for things made up on the radio one day either. As a matter of fact, that source PROVES this shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If you look through it, you'll see that it's quite obvious that the "Cleveland steamer" term was made up by one of the "male cast members" on the spot as some kind of joke; they were having a silly discussion about gross, made up sexual practices. In fact, merging this with Coprophilia is a bad idea, because this made-up slang term is of absolutely no importance to Coprophilia. As for this nomination being in "bad faith", I disagree. I think the nominator wasn't very civil... but there is PLENTY of reason this article should be deleted from wikipedia, so I just don't see bad faith. Mangojuice^talk 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking a little more closely, apparently the supposed mention on Family Guy occurred before the radio transcript. So they may not have made up the term (though after talking about a "Cleveland Tornado", I'm inclined to believe it's a coincidence or subconscious reference to the show). Still, they obviously made up what it's supposed to mean. Mangojuice^talk 18:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain how it's "obvious" that the radio show cast is responsible for creating the meaning of the term, even after the term was used on a more popular venue. I think that conclusion is pretty presumptuous, but if you have a source I'd be very interested. --TM 18:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me put it this way: on that transcript, it looks like they're making up the definition, so I don't even think it's convincing evidence of the definition already having been in use. But remember, the burden of proof is on those wanting to include information, not the other way around. And while we're at it... check out Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms (an official guideline) which reminds us that for something to be a reliable source about a neologism, it's got to discuss it, not use it. Assimilating many examples of use is specifically, and appropriately, described as Wikipedia:original research. This article fails that guideline very badly. Also, one last thing... I'm generally an eventualist, but I think that we've given this article enough of a chance to get real sources, and it hasn't, and it should be deleted until such sources can be found. Mangojuice^talk 19:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I belive this page should remain, it has survived afd and it appears no effort really has been made by some whom want it deleted to improve it. Yanksox 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --DavidGC 15:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Coprophilia per above. Ewlyahoocom 20:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I generally object to repeat noms and we have already argued the merits/demerits of this article. However, there is never a reason to personalize a deletion nomination by labeling another user. The accususations concerning the noms motives here are troubling and obliterate any chance for a fair hearing for this article at this time. -- JJay 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep bad faith nomination.  Grue  13:33, 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 --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Roads of Belfast[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list was moved from the Belfast article to a seperate page. Contains no useful information, and is unencyclopedic. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per User:Stumason. Unencyclopedic - Ali-oops^✍ 08:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have List of London streets and roads, List of roads and highways, List of streets and roads in Hong Kong, List of State Routes in New York, List of New York State Reference Routes and List of state highways in the United States to name but a few Jcuk 10:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York/HK articles are much more comprehensive. Most of the roads mentioned on them have articles. It is very unlikely that many of the Belfast roads will ever have, or will ever deserve, their own article. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no definition of what makes a "main road", so this is POV. Vizjim 10:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unnecessary. Gerry Lynch 12:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic & unnecessary. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, expand and rename if possible per JcUK. Some of these roads already have their own articles (now linked). Given the history of the area and the uniquely segregated nature of Belfast, it is in my view likely that many of these roads may well have a historical or cultural significance, especially in connection with The Troubles. For obvious reasons, Shankill Road and the Falls Road are already quite reasonable articles. I would strongly support a rename to, e.g. 'A-roads of Belfast', 'B-roads of Belfast', or similar, since the current one is inherently POV (UNLESS there is some official Highways Agency definition of a main road that I'm not aware of?). Badgerpatrol 16:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This information has been removed a number of times from Belfast but a article is not appropriate (nor the listing of them on wikipedia). A link to an authoritive external website (explaining their significance, if any) would be more appropriate. Djegan 17:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To those saying this list in unencyclopaedic, is the same not true of the other lists I mentioned? If so they should be AfD'd too. If however the other lists are encyclopaedic, then this one must be. You cant treat one set of roads any different from any other set of roads. Unless you want to start saying Jersey cows are less encyclopaedic than Fresian cows, Spanish villages are less encyclopaedic than German ones, or Mexican people are less encyclopaedic than American ones, for example. Jcuk 11:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please answer the point about what defines a "main road". If this list was called A roads in Northern Ireland it would at least not be POV. Vizjim 14:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stu & Vizjim. TheMadBaron 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for the moment for reasons given by user: Jcuk and Badgerpatrol. However this should be conditional on articles being written on the other roads. If that is not done on comining months, there would be case for deletion. I note that there are artticles (of very varying quality on some English A-roads. Peterkingiron 23:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The vast majority of the other roads do not deserve articles. The urban part of the Gilnahirk Road is about a mile long and contains nothing but houses and a school. The same is true for some of the others. You have to remember there is a distiction between the mains roads of a city the size of Belfast, and a city like London. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Are the main roads of Belfast not relevant information about Belfast? Why are some of the areas of Belfast listed and not others ie Ormeau Castlereagh? All the small villages are listed. 62.252.148.32 00:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 11:49, 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 07:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Stanworth[edit]

No claims made to satisfying guidelines for inclusion of humans. brenneman^{L} 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 12:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete If his webcomics survive their own AfDs, I'd probably just redirect him over there. This is going to be a rant, but this is as good a platform as any. Having articles on webcomic artists is often more trouble than it's worth. They're often neglected and I keep finding bogus criticism sections in them where people air their trivial beefs. They're utterly beneath our notice, but when I revert, their creators fight like wildcats. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or redirect. TheMadBaron 17:09, 17 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 07:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Mahmood[edit]

Vanity bio from Javed68 (talk · contribs). A lot of other animators make animations, and this person is not anything special --Ragib 09:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: nn, vanity. --Ragib 09:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, vanity, no IMDB entry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 12:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, vanity Optimale ^Gu 13:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, definitely nn. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, definitely vanity, page was created by himself. I have removed a wikilink to this page from an animation article, too. --Janke | Talk 18:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity, possible userfy M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography. How it made it as far as AfD, I just don't know.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amintore_Peluso[edit]

This page looks like a vanity page to me. There is absolutely no useful information in it either. olki 09:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - for nn bio if possible. Wickethewok 09:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CSD A7 & CSD G4.--blue520 09:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This is a really obvious speedy, and shouldn't even be here. Philosophus ^T 10:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. I'll request a speedy deletion the next time I come across a similar page. I just wasn't 100% sure whether to go for a speedy or not, so in the case of doubt I decided an AfD request would be more prudent. olki 11:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete- nn bio. Reyk _YO! 10:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and don't forget the images. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 12:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete vanity Ydam 12:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Rob 13:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not someone's personal blog. JIP | Talk 14:23, 16 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. Sango123 (e) 19:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of The Subways[edit]

• Delete - Forked off of The Subways. Already controversy over this, so its been brought it here. Any useful info should be merged and then this deleted. Wickethewok 09:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would be perfectly fine if the article was even remotely well-written and properly sourced, but it's not. Morever, this is section material and doesn't deserve its own entry. --Antrophica 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whatever's salvagable to The Subways. Ac@osr 10:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not only is this unsourced and a fork, the coverage of this Indie band with one whole LP to its name is already grossly excessive. And I was born in Hertfordshire. Just zis Guy you know? 14:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have not been able to verify any of the this article. --Cjakob 14:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverifiable, should be in section in 'The Subways' if anywhere, except it's too poorly written and unsourced. Amists 14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Personal opinion, original research, inherently POV (due to being almost completely unsourced) fork. -- Kicking222 15:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a fork, plain and simple. --Agamemnon2 11:15, 17 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. Sango123 (e) 19:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon the evil inside 2[edit]

Delete - the article about the first version of this game was deleted - this should be no different. Non-notable game, etc... sadly this doesn't qualify for db-repost. Wickethewok 09:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. Vizjim 10:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unofficial fan game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete This was made using RPG Maker, for gosh sakes! -- Kicking222 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fan-made game. Just zis Guy you know? 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fan game. Not notable. Passes no tests.  : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 17:46, 19 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. Sango123 (e) 19:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry Set Records[edit]

NN music label, fails WP:CORP. Dismas|^(talk) 09:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also basically an advertisement- oh, and the article was created by User:ChemSet. -- Kicking222 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Scot^t 18:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is what was added by an anon, User:69.178.130.210: --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that other than listing the name, and how to do describe an entitiy without that, there is NO self promotion nor is there any link to Chemistry Set Records (but there should be).

NN - except on about 50+ artists Myspace sites. (Per Google search) on independent white boards such as www.thejamzone.com with no affiation

Also see below:

Talk:Chemistry Set Records From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

My opinion is to keep it so that users are aware of this aspect of the whole "Weed" thing. I have researched on Wikipedia only to learn about the file sharing of music side. What's important to us Artists is to know how to get our music into the system and Wikid doesn't explain it anywhere else like this page does. I did a search for independent record labels and there had to be 50 entries in the "c" but Chemistry Set Record was not listed there, wonder why is that.?--Brokerdelete 21:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Electric Doormat, Bret, Jeff Marklein, Countrside (UK) and other artists who use CSR find this entry to be completely legit - proof? Visit Myspace.com/jeffmarklein Myspace.com/countrysideland Myspace.com/bretgrey Myspace.com/electricdoormat Visit www.chemistrysetrecords.com and select the "musicians" link and tell THEM that CSR isn't relevant. You do realize your being extremely discriminatory and favoring other labels which we artists have never heard before all over the Wiki place. Don't be biggots. Jeff. _ _ _

Wes, you gotta help me before I slam my head on the table real hard.

Please please please explain why this info is worthy of a big old tag about being considered for deletion:

Chemistry Set Records is an online 'label' and ICP (Independent Content Provider) for Weed™ which is a service developed by Shared Media Licensing (“SML”) [1]that lets you sell your music over the Internet and continue earning revenue even when your fans share your music with others.

Note that there is nothing but factual information there. I guess you'll have to search "Chemistry Set Records" in order to see the links and you'll see NOT A SINGLE ONE even goes to CSR. There are couple internal Wiki links and only one external which is the "SML" which goes to www.weedshare.com

Hey if THAT is the issue I'll gladly remove that link. You do realize that peeps going to weedshare's site helps me in no way right? So am I a vandal and spammer or something again here? Wiki is ridiculous, but Wes, you are a righteous dude so I'm hanging in there a bit longer (on 6 hours sleep). --ChemSet 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WHY would you consider this for deletion? What is the trip here man? Just type a reason here or something --24.182.12.127 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, obviously, as per the above. Vizjim 08:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Way I see it, anyone who pulls the "deleting my article is discrimination! / Don't censor me!" card is an automatic Delete vote. Articles that deserve to say can at least mount a better defence than that. --Agamemnon2 11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per head-spinning-inducing screeds. Anons, please note that ranting about unrelated articles isn't going to help the case of this article. Also, "Someone doing something first" isn't notable per se, unless the action really is world-changing (think of then-famous and now-famous bands getting leverage from Napster - while this is just some company hopping on the bandwagon a lot later). In this case, Weed may be notable, but there's no evidence about the company's notability (unless some is provided); as such, it may warrant a small mention in the Weed article. But unless this company is notable in its own merits, it doesn't need an article of its own - so please, read WP:CORP carefully and explain a contrary point. (And what does rising up have to do with P2P music distribution, anyway? Sorry, not intended as a lame spelling flame or anything - I was just so colossally disappointed when I thought I might learn some new musical term that I had to complain. Sorry.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have any resemblence of spam. Doesn't have a link to themselves even. It's true no other known ICP also has a online radio station to PROMOTE and EXPOSE the artists who have files available for download in Weed format. No less "notable" than other entries. Also true that Wiki has NO information for the interest of aspiring artists (all existing Wiki is on file sharing and addresses music fans instead of bands and artists).--69.178.130.210 21:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything within this article is NOTABLE.

Chemistry Set Records happens to be THE FIRST ICP to not only offer the Arist access to the Weed music distribution service system but to ALSO play their songs online via stream audio radio station on SHOUTcast.com.

(How do you think their songs get put into the weed digital format? You can't just got to the Weed site and say "ADD ME PLEASE" as the response will be "GO THROUGH AN ICP PLEASE")

You are completely missing the point that until now Wiki ONLY has information about the end user aquisition and file sharing the Weed file alone, and ZERO info on how an Atist can get into the system. This is wrong completely wrong of you. Please reconsider.

The system in itself is NOTABLE and a few seaches around the net will produce many indepedent publications mention over the last 3 or 4 years... I haven't the time at the moment but will post some the history and technology behind it tomorrow.

A business plan like Weed shows a new use of technology, etc and is therefore notable. But the COMPLETE picture and this side of the equation has been missing on Wiki for all these years for some reason.

Same thing with GarageBand.com I was completely shocked that until I came along and added a page for that Wiki seems to have slept through THE BIGGEST thing for unsigned artists on the net SINCE 1997

Lastly, instead of simply suggesting deletion, why not add constructive critisism or ways to correct to your satisfaction (never understood that part)--24.182.12.127 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above comments: promote + expose = WP:NOT Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "What's important to us Artists is to know how to get our music into the system and Wikid doesn't explain it anywhere else like this page does." Ugh, Wikipedia Not Instruction Manual. Include it elsewhere on the internets. Docether 19:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete agree to Docether NN and spam--Brokerdelete 19:56, 19 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. Sango123 (e) 19:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: Go Biofuel[edit]

Advert for a just-starting, not yet notable project. -- RHaworth 09:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "A plan to develop" = Something we made up in school. Terminate. Vizjim 10:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable. Rob 13:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 14:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Kicking222 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Richardcavell 03:54, 17 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kepple[edit]

This article was deleted through the WP:PROD system, but a person has disputed this on DRV. Because of that, I have undeleted the article and brought it here. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 'Comment: The reasoning stated in the "prod" was as follows:
    • he who draws NN internet things shall be NN. Apparently, not all webcomics are NN, but he hasn't drawn any with articles

• Keep. I feel he's a notable animator, being a significant contributor to the Animutation genre for the "Colin Mochrie vs Jesus" series (see also Opblaaskrokodil) and also for his music videos for Neil Cicierega's music. --Billpg 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a newspaper mention from The Fayetteville Observer from 15th March.

• Keep. Have you no heart to consider him nonnotable? I am not going to support this with a lame "He is just famous on the internet," but rather, he has earned a good number of awards in Newgrounds, achieved high fame in Albino Blacksheep, especially with his Lemon Demon music videos and his best known animutation, French Erotic Film, and is a regular contributor to both sites. Many people follow his style of Flash animation, and he is widely respected throughout the internet. He did make some non-notable works, but that does not make him non-notable, because of French Erotic Film, Zero Wing Rhapsody, Only Superhuman, and a good share of others. Plus, Veloso, the author of Irrational Exuberence, is also there, and Kepple is just as popular. Another supporting point: since French Erotic Film is mentioned in the Wikipedia several times, and there is a page on Ome Henk's song, Opblaaskrokodil, in which Kepple wrote French Erotic Film, there should be a page on Andrew Kepple. One final pointer: not all famous flash persons draw ALL notable works. AltF4 is famous MOSTLY because of The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny and seldom anything else. There is just one undeniable thing that there is: this page is in a stark need of a cleanup, but does not deserve to be deleted. In conclusion, even if this page is not saved, it should. Thanks for listening to my long, boring speech, and thanks for showing no respect to the animutation world (in a sarcastic way), to all those who say otherwise as below. --Wartys Neryon 9:13, 16 May 2006 (PTC)

• Delete Internet Flash animator. I get just 180 unique Google hits, so the old "but he's famous on the internet!" excuse doesn't apply here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • His work may be more noted than he is, but it doesn't change his notability. Certainly, more people knew of Seinfeld than Larry David, but his notability wouldn't have been in question. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as having no readily apparent claim to encyclopaedic notability. Cicierega's work is borderline for my money, and this looks so much like an attempt at search engine optimisation (look at all those links!) that I have a hard time taking it seriously. Where are the multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources? Just zis Guy you know? 11:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. --TM 14:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --cholmes75 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Ravenswing 16:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above, not enough notoriety. --Zer0faults 16:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The presence of other articles on non-notable people is a reason to delete the others, not a reason to keep this one. — Haeleth Talk 18:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 18:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Voting Again, But Getting to the Facts. I posted here to disprove and dispel your ideal, Haeleth. Veloso was famed because of Irrational Exuberence. You just did not go to Albino Blacksheep very often. It is a big site, just like Newgrounds, and it hosts that and French Erotic Film, both famous titles there. You are just ignorant of Albino Blacksheep and the world of Animutation, plus Ome Henk is notable in the Netherlands and (after French Erotic Film) the internet. --Wartys Neryon 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A lot of keep comments seem to say that he's active and notable on the "Animutations" circuit. How large is this community exactly? If you could give actual numbers, that would help. - Hahnchen 14:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Sorry to go on this commenting thing again. Anyway, to take a far less aggressive approach, he was famous because of his animutation series, the Colin Mochrie vs. JHC trilogy, which can be seen on Albino Blacksheep but he wasn't just an animutator, but also a cartoonist in general: a contributor of two major entertainment sites. Somehow, Andrew Kepple is on the WikiProject Webcomics, and is threatened for deletion because of that. If only we could take the webcomic business as very little as possible and only mention the webcomic stuff on the external links (as is the page on Neil Cicierega, where his Farchie Archie webcomic is only mentioned in the external links), this might help just at least a bit by taking it out of WikiProject Webcomics. I wouldn't really care if the page is gone, but I do have a slight feeling he is notable in a ways. Oh yes, and there is about a few hundred members right now (I believe) in the Animutation Mailing List, but if anyone has a reliable source of information in regards to how large the animutation world is, please post it here. Forgive me, all y'all, for being rather stubborn. -- Wartys Neryon 3:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete per JzG --Hetar 22:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote, for now, and comment. I'm a big fan of TmsT's work, and I tend to hang out in the same online circles as him, such as the Animutation discussion list and the Lemon Demon forums; given that, I probably have an imbalanced perspective of his notability, since he is indeed quite noted relative to those communities. I don't have a good sense of how widely noted he is on the Internet in general, though if the article is to be kept, then it should include explanation of his notability, which it currently lacks.

  Colin Mochrie himself is apparently a fan of the Colin vs. Jesus trilogy, which would probably be a point in favour of Kepple's notability, but I'll need to find a reliable source for that.—Adam Atlas 23:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Few people in his line of work get mentioned in newspapers. JoshuaZ 01:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Yes, but one would think that if he were genuinely notable, he'd be mentioned on the Internet. Which he hasn't particularly been either. Ravenswing 08:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above - Hahnchen 10:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep May not be notable in my world of interest, but very notable in his own realm. We must divorce our interests and biases in deciding notability.  : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 17:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Animutations go, his work is among the best known. Bryan 06:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per all delete votes above. Zaxem 11:51, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William McFerrin Stowe[edit]

Tagged as a speedy as a G3 no context, but I think context is established. Not sure if this an A7 either, because bishops may well be notable (for instance the bishops of the state church in Norway are pretty well known with considerable media attention). No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe we could all just have a little patience? I am working on this article. Sorry I couldn't get everything in there right away. Hang in there -- its coming! Pastorwayne 12:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Enough content to establish notability now. RGTraynor 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• THinking about it a bit more I have decided that all bishops of a major church are notable. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. sufficiently notable, asserted within the article. -- cmh 22:03, 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 Deleted as patent nonsense. kingboyk 11:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovekids[edit]

inappropriate Wikipedia usage Dunstan ^talk 11:07, 16 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 Proto||type 13:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Modernist women writers[edit]

I normally don't suggest deletions, but this page doesn't seem to receive any replies and appears inactive. I don't think this article has much chance of taking off -- it is too specific for Wikipedia at this point. This talk page is entirely about which female modernist writers are notable and as such ought to be merged into Talk:Modernist literature — Донама 01:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks like this is work in progress for ((WikiProjectCSBTasks)). AnonEMouse 14:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - literary pages can take ages to get going. Vizjim 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article will appear any day now. Though it is incredibly bemusing that an article which doesn't exist already has a talk page. Hasty Fool 19:00, 17 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/redirect to Communist Party of Britain. Proto||type 13:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer and dove[edit]

Not really encyclopedic; party was not the main communist party in 20th century;only serves promotional purposes.. tells us nothing max rspct leave a message 11:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge In to Communist Party of Britain no need for a seperate article Ydam 12:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per Ydam. Zaxem 11:54, 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. Mostly Rainy 07:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned episodes of Pokémon[edit]

Contains original research, unencyclopaedic tone, a POV title (banned? or just not shown for some reason?) and - in the end - I reckon it's Pokémoncruft. Just zis Guy you know? 13:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep When one or more episodes of a popular show are banned (or withheld or whatever you prefer to call it), there's usually reasoning behind it and in most cases is quite interesting. The Porygon seisure epsiode in particular made worldwide headlines when it occured... I remember reading about it long before Pokemon was well-known in the US. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was reading this just this morning, and I'm not one for trawling through pages of Pokecruft. This information is interesting and notable. Vashti 14:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quite notable & encyclopedic. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is interesting and seems notable. Metamagician3000 14:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong Delete - read the article, please, chaps. Not a single one of these episoes has been banned by any normally recognised definition of the word: they're just not shown. The writer speculates that the episodes have been withdrawn, but gives no proof at all. The episode with the epilepsy-inducing flashes is covered (better) elsewhere, and even that has not actually been banned. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic, speculative fancruft that is potentially untrue. Vizjim 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...so rename the page, then? Vashti 15:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To what, though? Episodes of Pokemon that don't seem to get shown any more, though we should legally point out that nobody has formally withdrawn them from circulation, at least we don't have any evidence of their having done so? Vizjim 15:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Controversial episodes of Pokemon? That would cover the differing attitudes towards some of the episodes across countries. Vashti 15:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then all we'd need to do is change the tone and add sources. In my book, wrong tone, wrong title and no references is a delete :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Vizjim (I'm starting to really like that guy). If it must be kept, move to Episodes of Pokemon that don't seem to get shown any more, though we should legally point out that nobody has formally withdrawn them from circulation, at least we don't have any evidence of their having done so. Definately don't keep it here; this is a textbook example of a misleading title. ergot 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although it could use some more source verification (already tagged for that). --cholmes75 15:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not a Pokemon fan but I found the article pretty interesting. Would maybe add a tag to get some sources listed so it doesn't seem like original research. --Zer0faults 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a quick google search also shows many of these as being banned. I dont have the time to verify the original sources however. --Zer0faults 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this search? Because I can't see a single reliable reference saying that any of these episodes have been banned, just that certain commercial networks aren't showing them. Vizjim 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per Vizjim. After actually reading the article, it's obvious that this is NOT encyclopedic at all. -- Kicking222 16:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete per Vizjim. There isn't a factoid here that shouldn't be mentioned in the articles to the individual eps, and the Pokemon fedayeen being what it is, there would have to be. Ravenswing 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also found it interesting, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Aplomado ^talk 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mr. Lenahan. - CNichols 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible delete with icing and cherries on top per nom. and Vizjim. YES, this essay is interesting. NO, being interesting does not override the three fundamental Wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, of which this article violates all three. — Haeleth Talk 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but major editing It needs a major rewriting. Major. Jebusman says so. --Jebusman 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs to be moved, because "banned" is not the right word, and citations added. Aguerriero (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs to be rewritten a bit, with possibly a title change, but it is full of useful information (to some) that's too long to just stick on the bottom of the Pokémon (anime) article. Censorship is one of those things that should be recorded, and it is essential information to the Pokémon anime article (unless we're planning to delete that, too). And besides, at least it's not just another list. -- Lampbane 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vashti and Starblind. I'm surprised this has been nominated. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I say keep it. User_talk:Bobabobabo
• Delete: Interesting, sure. However it has major problems with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR that I don't think can be overcome. --Hetar 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I thought this was a very interesting article. - Richardcavell 23:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think we should create articles on each of these episodes individually, and put a section in each labeled controversy over the episode or something like that. Cabby2 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Cabby2, especially since some people are making episode guides, and Computer Soldier Porygon has one. I wouldn't object to keeping it though. Matty-chan 21:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and give it a throughout mopping (the "really really really throughout" kind of mopping, you know). Though I'd definitely like to see this getting integrated into the Pokémon episode articles themselves (once they exist for each episode in question), after which this could be turned into a category. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to a different title. Can't think of a good one, though. But delete if no reliable sources are found (people appear to be finding some, however, from what I read above). LjL 17:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I really liked this piece and I think that it stands to good reason to be on wikipedia. I think that the title could be redirected and changed to Controversial episodes/Unaired episodes But seriously, it was enjoyed and should not be deleted. Galoisprotege 2:29 19 May 2006
• Comment Whether or not this article is deleted, the information regarding the Porygon seizures is notable and should be preserved. --Algorithm 11:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Or clean up and merge with a related article. Most of the episodes are not actually "banned", but rather never shown. I found this page to be informative, although it does require some cleaning up. --hirokazu 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Andrew Lenahan - Rudykog 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that I think about it, Keep until all the episodes have their own seperate articles. Then make into a category, perhaps a subcategory for "Pokémon episodes". Matty-chan 04:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful article of reference. --FlyingPenguins 19:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it. It's not original research, I've seen this list many times. Sources can be found. Plus,when episodes of a very popular kids show are yanked for whatever reason, I consider that notable. The title of the article reads more like a magazine headline and REALLY needs to be changed, maybe to Unaired episodes of Pokemon, but the info here is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs)

• Keep. Seems notable to me. I often come to this article, and was definitely surprised to see this on AfD... -- RattleMan 05:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.  Grue  13:40, 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, nom withdrawn. Kusma (討論) 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth theory[edit]

POV fork of Truth. See [11]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC) See below. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data[edit]

JA: By way of background, here are the previous Wikiquette Alerts:

13 May 2006

• Might help to have an observer at Truth over the next few days, with regard to events beginning here. 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

16 May 2006

• Stemming from an earlier dispute over the appropriate technical level for the article Truth (alert posted above, 13 May 2006), a new article Truth theory was created to cover the subject at a more comprehensive technical level. Would appreciate guidance about the proper use of Cleanup, Factual Accuracy, Merge, and OR tags. 03:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: Here is a sample of data gathered on the division between introductory level and advanced level articles, as the distinction is currently drawn on a de facto basis in WikiPedia:

Table. Introductory and Advanced Articles in WikiPedia

Introductory	Advanced
Introduction to special relativity	Special relativity
Introduction to general relativity	General relativity
Introduction to quantum mechanics	Quantum mechanics, Mathematical form of QM
Set	Set theory, Algebra of sets
Naive set theory	Axiomatic set theory, Alternative set theory
Function (mathematics)	Function (set theory)
Binary relation, Triadic relation	Relation (mathematics)
Graph	Graph theory
Group, Elementary group theory	Group theory
Ring (mathematics)	Ring theory
Field (mathematics)	Field theory (mathematics)
Vector space	Linear algebra
Topology	Topological space, Algebraic topology
Introduction to topos theory	Topos theory
Boolean logic	Boolean algebra
Information	Information theory
Computer science	Theoretical computer science
Computation	Theory of computation
Computing, Computable function	Computability theory
Recursion	Recursion theory
Relational database	Relational algebra, Relational model
Biology	Theoretical biology
Music	Music theory
List of basic dance topics	List of dance topics

JA: Jon Awbrey 13:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure[edit]

JA: With regard to the article Truth theory, that was a page that already existed in the form of a redirect to Truth, but which I changed from a redirect to an article in order to add content that was being wholesale deleted from Truth, initially by a single editor who had been away from the page for an extended time and simply started deleting everything that he considered too "abstract", "advanced", "technical", etc., and who objected that the References section was "bloated and inappropriate" to what amounts to his opinion about the preparation and needs of the intended reader.

JA: Thus I believe it is not accurate to describe this page as resulting from a POV Fork. The need for a separate page arises from the need to address a different intended reader, one with more than an initial interest in the subject, and one who will be tolerant of a more abstract, advanced, comprehensive, and detailed technical discussion, with all due "bloat" of the Bib that this entails.

JA: The article on Truth has always been a turbulent site, as anyone can well imagine, but the editors who were doing the actual work on site up until that time had evolved a modus vivendi, involving the excruciating examination on the talk page of every bit of controversial text, that seemed to be working about as well as anyone could expect. All that went out the window on May 12. Jon Awbrey 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• Keep in some form. This can either be a stand alone article, in which case much of the section "Major theories of truth" in the truth article should also come over (with significant duplication acceptable), or get merged back into truth. But this content should not be deleted. GRBerry 02:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. After looking more carefully, I see I misunderstood what was going on. I'm sorry for the inconvenience this nomination caused. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Truth as per GRBerry. The content is verbose to the point of incomprehensibility, the topic treated in far too much detail - for comparison, the Britannica article on "truth" consists of a single sentence; the Britannica has no article on Truth theory. Banno 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Electors who elect to read a few paragraphs of the article before voting will know that the The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1996) includes an entry for truth theory which refers the reader in turn to the entry for truth definition.

Blackburn, Simon (1996), The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1994. Paperback edition with new Chronology, 1996. Cited as ODP.

I need not remind our crustier scholars that the EB does not count as a fully authorized source, since its entries are not signed by their authors. Jon Awbrey 21:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote: Because I'd need to hear from someone more knowledgeable about philosophy to see if "truth theory" is actually a concept in popular use, but the article by itself is just unfocused rambling, mostly tangential to the concept of 'truth'. Peter Grey 21:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term does appear to be used by academics. [12] Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the problem; Jon is obviously passionate about his work. Will he oppose a merge, regardless of the outcome of this process? The material in Truth theory consists at least in part of material that had already been removed from Truth by other editors. Will mering simply result in the same stuff appearing under yet another heading? Banno 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: Banno is a party to the dispute at Truth, and has a distinctive POV with respect to the questions of intended reader, level of detail, technical level, and so on. These are not primarily disputes about content, as we had a routine for resolving those issues that was working up until May 13, when Nathan Ladd came back from a long break and simply started deleting text en masse that he said was too "abstract", "advanced", "technical", and so on. If the reviewers will trace the course of the edit history beginning at the link that I posted in my first WQA, copied here, then I think that the record will bear that out. Thanks, Jon Awbrey 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: The article truth is both too long and too technical. That article should give a brief discussion of truth in philosophy, with each major school defined, but the more technical parts should be moved to truth theory. On the other hand, the article truth theory should cover a variety of ideas, not just one philosophical specialty. Rick Norwood 13:15, 19 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. Sango123 (e) 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletters in Pakistan[edit]

Student essay. Reviews a number of non-notable newsletters and contains a lot of how-to stuff about writing them. -- RHaworth 13:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Long essay with totally non-encyclopedic tone, switches to 2nd-person in places, i.e.: "Send the newsletter to just about everyone you do business with … bankers, accountants, lawyers … it’s a way of networking!" Unsalvagable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Starblind. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Starblind. --soUmyaSch 14:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Kicking222 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essay as it exists is non notable. If published in notable journal, if author was notable independent of essay? As is, not notable.  : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 17:50, 19 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 A7. Just zis Guy you know? 14:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eargasm[edit]

nonnotable band Skysmith 13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Speedy From the article: "They Formed one fine school day in 2006 and are working on their first songs" That says it all, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 16 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 userified by author. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie maclean[edit]

Appears to be autobiography (article and author are the same), although Google search does yield many results the apparent commercial link suggests self-promotion, no pages link to this article, text is exactly the same as user page Si-Jay 14:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedily Delete nn, vanity. tagged with ((db-bio)). --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure Definitely NOT a speedy candidate, although the first paragraph does look like one. Article presents substantial claims of notability, such as being named "World's Best Drink Writer" and numerous published articles in mainstream publications. Unfortunately none of this is backed up with verifiable sources, though if sources are added I'd say this might be a keeper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having stumbled across this while go through speedy-candidate articles, I agree. I've removed the speedy tag in favour of this AfD debate. —Whouk (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. I guess even Geogre's Law has exceptions. Google gets 32,000 hits, including http://www.winesofcanada.com/natalie_maclean.html, http://gremolata.com/natalie_maclean.htm, http://www.winewriterscircle.ca/members/nmaclean.html, that all confirm the many awards. Here's looking at you, kid. AnonEMouse 14:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side note - I doubt the article writer is the same as the article subject. If she is truly an internationally renowned journalist, she would not forget to capitalize her own last name -- in two places, even. AnonEMouse 15:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The writer even userfied the article already. That just goes to show what sort of vanity, nn-bio junk this is. -- Kicking222 16:04, 16 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.