< May 3 May 5 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

May 4[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeHouse Digest[edit]

Fairly well written article about a magazine that hasn't been published yet. Francs2000 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Stories: Rick James[edit]

This is a textbook example of WP:CRUFT. I thought this skit was very funny, but I can't see a single reason to keep pages of text on no more than ten minutes of TV. These articles chronicling everything ever broadcast are tedious. This may be suitable for a fansite, but not a general interest encyclopedia. Brian G. Crawford 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has withdrawn his nomination (though I think prematurely). Someone else nominate this or retire the AfD! - Richardcavell 05:32, 8 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 (nn-band). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denis canary[edit]

NN band which fails WP:Music. Article itself is written as nonsense. Article admits they are a local band who are no longer performing. Ataricodfish 00:56, 4 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 (nomination withdrawn) without prejudice to possible merger with Mallrats. Metamagician3000 07:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brodie Bruce[edit]

One of several articles about characters from Kevin Smith movies that should probably be reviewed. Character appeared in one movie, Mallrats, and that article looks like a much better place for this info. --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 01:01, 4 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. AndyZ 21:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britt World Wide[edit]

Amwaycruft, advertisement, non-notable; see also Quixtar Motivational Organization et al. Paul 01:05, 4 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 00:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Britt[edit]

Amwaycruft/advertisement/NN; see also Quixtar Motivational Organization et. al Paul 01:07, 4 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 00:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line of sponsorship[edit]

Amwaycruft; can either be merged into Amway/Quixtar etc or deleted entirely; see also Quixtar Motivational Organization Paul 01:09, 4 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 A7. Tawker 02:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Gasparello[edit]

Per WP:BIO, a high school principal isn't really a subject for an encyclopedia article. 186 G-hits, 80 unique. He was quoted in the news once when some of his students got arrested. Most of the info in the article is utterly unverifiable, and what's verifiable is a sub-stub. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 01:10, 4 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 00:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art "Smokehouse" Lindsey, III[edit]

Non-notable personality Bennie Noakes 01:16, 4 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. AndyZ 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Ambassador[edit]

WP:NOT a directory; this article is nothing but. More Amwaycruft. Paul 01:19, 4 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. AndyZ 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers media[edit]

An article about a non-notable fansite; google search came up with three hits relating to it, all of them are self references Hobbeslover 01:19, 4 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 closed. See the discussion itself for details. - Mailer Diablo 15:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush[edit]

This debate has become too long to be transcluded onto the day's AFD page. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination) to comment.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AndyZ 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portaltop[edit]

Non-notable project. Google can't find a project page, and the article was recently edited (by creator) to the future tense, implying that it doesn't even exist yet. Either way, it's neither verifiable nor notable. (PROD was attempted and failed.) Zetawoof(ζ)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zooids[edit]

should be wikitionary JBEvans 02:01, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NinJo[edit]

Seems to be an advertisement of software by SUN microsystems (see links) Pflatau 02:24, 4 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 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Ought Six[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7'd. Tawker 05:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Filkovic[edit]

Delete No Assertion to notability, external links don't support this either. Librarianofages 02:47, 4 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 Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme Coffee[edit]

Prodded (by me) as "Non-notable coffee shop." Prod tag removed with the edit summary comment of "It has been proposed that this article be deleted because, according to some, Gimme Coffee is a "non-notable coffeeshop". Merriam Webster defines notable as "worthy of note" and in NY, Gimme is." The initial reason I prodded this page is that there is no real notability stated in the article. However, looking at the press page on their Web site, they do list a few publications in which they are mentioned [2]. I'm not 100% certain this meets WP:CORP though. In any case, I thought it's worth an AfD discussion. If the article is kept, then it at least needs to do more to state notability. ScottW 03:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a second look on their press page they do have a reasonable amount of media coverage. Unfortunately, "non-trivial" is quite subjective, so it's hard to know where to draw the line. Kevin 12:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is where my uncertainty lies. There are certainly several substantial articles in the local media, however, my local newspaper eventually will do a few articles on every restaurant/cafe in town--most of them not-notable. The most notable articles in the global media section are mostly brief mentions. Do these constitute non-trivial works? I would have a lot less trouble keeping this article if it had any sort of encyclopedic content or substantial edits. As it stands at the moment, I'm not sure this article could be made encyclopedic. ScottW 13:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point of clarification: It's a small chain, but I don't believe it's actually a franchise. ScottW 12:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, there are six locations (article only lists five though). ScottW 22:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied G1. Tawker 05:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seagull assasins[edit]

Speedy delete - patent nonsense Nv8200p talk 03:21, 4 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 01:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars references in Drawn Together[edit]

Fancruft. Pugs Malone 03:41, 4 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 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Haldane[edit]

Non-notable Vanity bio. Previously tagged for speedy deletion [3] but deemed not speedy-able [4]. I prodded it [5], but prod tag was contested (removed) [6] by anon whose only edits were to the article [7] Anon gave no reason for tag's removal, and is probably the author and subject of the article, Jjhaldane (contribs), just not logged in. I suggest deleting the article as vanity and failing WP:BIO. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:52, 4 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 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian American Alliance at SUNY Albany[edit]

non notable college organization Reid A. 03:53, 4 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 advert. Tawker 05:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dollar Rent a Car Los Cabos[edit]

Patent Nonsense / Advertising: Site serves no other function that the company page would. Granite Learner 04:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedied G1. Tawker 05:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saidu hospial[edit]

This looks like rather a spam addition, has no links and is incoherent. If you feel you can improve it to sort the content and make it usefule please do. SpamBilly 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Vollans[edit]

Very dubious accuracy. Google does not acknowledge the professor in question, the two universities listed do not exist, there are no references or citations. Ollie 04:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As one of the sophomoric people who voted delete above, could you please supply a website or publication which verifies the information in the article? Per WP:V, an article has to be verifiable. Even if the article is true, we need something to verify the article. Show me evidence of verifiability, and I'll reconsider my vote. Otherwise, my sophomoric delete remains. --Ataricodfish 22:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Professor, top-ranking police officer, one of Britain's finest law theorists and academic celebrity? Is the University of Sevenoaks also a 6th Form? Even if the man exists, i remain unconvinced of the factual accuracy of the article. I will, of course, reconsider if verification is provided! Ollie 04:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://proxy:81/6thformweb/Law/Documents/Module%201%20Statutory%20Interpretation%20&%20Judicial%20Precedent.doc

Comment The above link is located on the school intranet and will not work from the outside. However I've supplied a screenshot that shows Mr. Vollans notes on part of the law used to teach first year sixth formers. The picture is not faked or doctored in any way (because I'm not that bothered about the whole thing to take the time), and I would include the whole article at request, however I'm not going to due to the fact the notes should stay within respected students possession. http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a46/iamstewart/LOLOLOLOLOL.jpg
Comment. The context of this debate started out with suspicion of a hoax based on fictitions university names and unverified assertions of fame which would lead one to think that the professor, if as noted as stated in the article, would at least have one mention on the billions of pages indexed by google. I now think this person may very well be a real person. However, this does little to address the underlying verifiability and notability issues. Even if he is a real professor, is he really "considered to be one of Britain's finest law theorists" who often consults with the House of Lords? Who and how many consider him to be so and how does this translate to wider fame? Does he have any publications? Newpaper/magazine write ups. Yes we started with the question of whether this was a hoax, but the same problems that led to that conclusion, still lead me, at least, to believe this person is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Please address the underlying verifiability of the claims and substantiation of his fame. The hoax issue is not the relevant inquiry to meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you that Google does not provide the answer to everything. However, I do appreciate your concern in relation to the professor's academic success. Unfortunately, I do not feel I can provide further citation for the time being.217.33.207.195 14:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. I am not implying google "answer's everything." It was a tool used to attempt to substantiate an article with no sources. Now that you have added some substantiation that he is a real person, you or anyone else who wants the article to remain must substantiate the assertions contained therein. The burden is not on us to find those for you. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:30, 5 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 daleted as A7. Bonus marks for spelling colour correctly, but still no assertion of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 21:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colour Revolt[edit]

Also including Colour revolt, which is basically the same. This is a rather strange situation: Colour Revolt and Colour revolt were created as basically identical articles; Colour Revolt was tagged with ((XD7)) with reason "no AMG entry, no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC guidelines" and Colour revolt was tagged with ((mfd)) (uncompleted), then both were recreated basically identically without removing the tags. On to proper procedure: delete, User:Friday's reason for XD7 is good. TimBentley (talk) 04:21, 4 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, then redirect. Mailer Diablo 15:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion keyblade[edit]

not notable Reid A. 04:22, 4 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. Metamagician3000 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Miller[edit]

Looks like a vanity page to me MUSpud2 04:24, 4 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) 22:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Life in the Marvel Universe[edit]

Not worth an entire entry on Wikipedia, evident by the lack of research and citations that have gone into this fancruft listing. Just a collection of non-noteworthy details, some only from a single comic book. SilentTannenbaum 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...hundreds of articles about what?? What?? WHAT??? ;) Deizio talk 14:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a minute to realize what he meant, too, Deizio, but if you click edit page, you'll see he was saying "articles about pokemon", but he put a category link which which puts the marker you see at the bottom of the page instead of the text in his entry. Elijya 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So that's why today's log is in the Pokemon category... Deizio talk 15:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it so it will appear now. Mangojuicetalk 16:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry everyone. Satan's Rubber Duck 16:42, 4 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonya And Nancy: The Opera[edit]

nn play. Deprodded. It has 384 google hits, but none of the international media reports it purports to have. It started two days ago, a university production, and basically all the hits were from university noticeboards and random bloggers.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Keep, there are enough sources cited below to verify this and it is notable. The sources need to be added to the article though. Gwernol 03:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Ah, good point then, so I'll strike that out. Probably just copying the AP article. However, Sports Illustrated is definitely a major publication. I don't know if it's only in the online issue of SI or in the print magazine, though. This does show T&N is in the news, but perhaps it fails WP:N? --Ataricodfish 05:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alright, after researching WP:NOT, I strike my weak keep. Wikipedia is not a news report, and as of now, article is of a non-notable play which is currently getting minor press for its goofy newsfriendly topic. Should it move to bigger venues, win awards, gross a substancial amount, etc., then we can reconsider the article in the future per WP:N. --Ataricodfish 05:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.233.78.224 (talk • contribs) .

Comment I fully trust Lexis-Nexis, and as I noted above, the article appeared in Sports Illustrated online and other AP articles. However, is this opera noteable yet? Right now, it's just human interest news, considering it only premiered a few days ago as a college production and is receiving attention primarily for the novelty of a Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan singing. Having reviewed WP:not and WP:N, I don't think the article is noteable or any different than any other student production by graduate students at other colleges -- the only difference is that the subject matter made a nice human interest story for a day. Now, if the play expands to a major venue, wins an award, or makes tons of money, then I'd argue for keeping the article. But right now, it's not yet noteable and is simply a college production which had a good press release going for it. --Ataricodfish 20:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see your point and where you're coming from. My stance is that it is notable because it is a college production that has garnered national (international disputed) attention. It is extremely rare for that sort of attention to happen, and is the main reason I'd say keep. I definitely appreciate the additional reasoning you've offered, though. --24.50.144.90 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Trust me, I was torn with this, which is why I voted "Weak Keep" originally before changing my vote to "Delete". To use a recent example, there was a cat named Molly that was trapped in a NY wall recently which received a great deal of attention for a week across the globe. It made a nice human interest piece, but then the story disappeared a month ago when the cat was rescued. An article was attempted for Molly the cat, but was deleted as non noteable. My belief is that it's too early to evaluate T&N, as its importance might disappear by next week never to be heard of again. Now, should it follow the path of operas like the Jerry Springer one and become even a small scale success -- i.e., we're still hearing of this opera a year from now -- then I'd fully support keeping this in Wiki. --Ataricodfish 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The opera has now been covered by NPR's "Only A Game" program: http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/330/510052/5383921/WBUR_5383921.mp3

This program is carried by about 118 radio stations, so at this point I think it's fair to say that this production, regardless of who is producing it, has garnered significant national attention.

Keep There is another article here that mentions press that goes back a couple years: http://www.oregonlive.com/entertainment/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/114669333737030.xml&coll=7 And here is an AP article in USA Today from 2005: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/winter/2005-10-13-harding-kerrigan-opera_x.htm?POE=click-refer There is also video coverage here: http://www.kptv.com/Global/category.asp?C=36238 And here is an article from The London Daily Telegraph from a few months ago: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2006/02/10/soicus10.xml Furthermore, the writer, Elizabeth Searle, is notable. She's had several books published and has been reviewed by the NY Times Book Review —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.6.22.42 (talk • contribs) .

Keep From everything above, its pretty clear that the opera is being produced. Its pretty clear that it has gotten some press. It is not for us to judge the value of said press one way or the other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.19.206 (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A1/A3/G2/etc. Stifle (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous nomadic[edit]

If you look at the first couple versions of this article, it seems the user was just sandboxing and then forgot about the page. Xaxafrad 04:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- borderline nonsense. Reyk YO! 07:47, 4 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 09:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socratic Club (University of Michigan)[edit]

NN club at the University of Michigan, where Yahoo! search for "Socratic Club" and "University of Michigan" finds 31 hits including Wiki and a collection of unrelated advertisements [11]. Besides stating that human beings are allowed to go to club meetings, nothing notable is determined in this article, failed WP:N. Ataricodfish 04:58, 4 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 09:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socratic Club (Oregon State University)[edit]

Another non notable college club, this time with 88 hits on Yahoo! but again mainly Wiki links, ads, MySpace pages, and the like [12]. Article fails WP:N. Ataricodfish 05:05, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralf Hotchkiss[edit]

A businessman who is involved in wheelchair manufacturing. It appears to be advertising. Deprodded.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused here. I'm trying to properly contest the proposal that this article be deleted, but I'm new at this and not sure I've got the procedure right. Here's what I said on the discussion page of the Ralf Hotchkiss article itself --
This page is absolutely NOT an advertisement. Therefore, I am removing the request for deletion (as I understand the policies and procedures say I can/should). I added this page because I believe what Hotchkiss and his company are doing is important, is part of a contemporary movement to promote sustainable development, and is admirable and should be known about. You'll also notice that Whirlwind has its own entry in Wikipedia. I'm new to Wikipedia, too, and am kind of shocked to have my first entry attacked so quickly. By the way, I have no connection to Hotchkiss or Whirlwind except as a college classmate who admires him and his work. Mildredofbeulah 05:18, 4 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 deleted by MONGO as dicdef. --Arnzy (Talk) 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokhi[edit]

Wikipedia is not... BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:01, 4 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. Chick Bowen 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Fancher, Jr.[edit]

The edit history, the content of the article, and the lack of links seem to indicate that this is a vanity page. A google search for this person reveals nothing. Chaser 05:20, 4 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. --Ezeu 09:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Workshop[edit]

This is an advertisement for a skateboard company in Dayton, Ohio. No assertion of notability or evidence that it meets WP:CORP. The company's website has no Alexa ranking. Prod removed without comment by the page's creator. Based on the above I am recommending delete. --Hetar 05:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except, it's not policy. I think there's a pretty good reason to have this article, as there aren't many skateboard producers on this level. Why should WP:CORP overrule that? Mangojuicetalk 14:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A bit more digging reveals they don't go in for too much self-promotion, corporate history or general showing-off on their site. Imo notable within this field, some of their t-shirts and wallets are approaching iconic, but they don't seem to care that we can't WP:V their wikipedia entry very well. Deizio talk 19:12, 5 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. --Ezeu 09:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Fourteen[edit]

I speedily deleted this page as a repost of deleted content. The article creator objected, asserting that the new article addressed the objections raised in the previous AFD. Therefore I am bringing the new version here. Snottygobble 05:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I think it's far to widely-noted to be considered a neologism. Even purely on its incredibly widespread use on discussion boards, it would probably qualify as an internet meme. But of course it doesn't have to rely on this argument. And I don't think it's consistent with the idea of "not biting the newcomers" to categorically disregard reasoned opinions that come from unregistered users (it's not a vote, anyway). For one thing, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to the idea of a merge & redirect to Law School Rankings as an alternative to keeping the current article. Of course, I think keeping it would be better, because I think the sources make it clear that the term is widely-used and understood by nearly everyone involved with law school admissions, even the people who don't think it should be as important as it is. -Cheapestcostavoider 03:10, 10 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. Metamagician3000 13:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet mace[edit]

Don't delete this! Velvet-mace is an awesome writer and is one of the nicest people I know! She definately deserves an article!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.107.137 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Neither awesomeness nor niceness are criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:BIO. - Fan1967 13:52, 5 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 15:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Carama[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Carama

Very Strong Delete and protect This article clearly violates WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, and WP:PROFTEST. Assertions of notability are made in the article but are not cited although they don't even establish notability based on Wikipedia's guidelines for notability anyway. Anonymous user who contributes to this article refuses to cite his sources and reverts requests for neccesary citations. Article in Origional research about a non-notable prof. Just because he has attended Julliard does not make him notable by the standards for prof notability set in WP:PROFTEST. This is a vanity article being used for the promotion of this individual who teaches privately and his students. Strothra 06:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also note that the link has been taken down from the website where it was once stored. There is now absolutely no authorative source suggesting any possible notability. --Strothra 09:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument was not made properly the first time and with enough evidence backing it. Simply because you apply a subjective reasoning to what a "reasonable" period of time is does not mean that you should ignore the evidence altogether and go against common sense in your vote simply because you believe that the procedure should have been different. If you are going to do that then you should abstain. --Strothra 09:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. -- Hirudo 09:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this probably would have been better dealt with through deletion review, but given that we're here, I agree the right thing is to keep going. And always remember, this is not a vote. Regards Ben Aveling 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? He is not a faculty member of Julliard, he attended it as a student. Not all students at that school are notable.--Strothra 09:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And frankly, I doubt there is any school where all faculty are automatically notable enough to warrent their own articles. Ben Aveling 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no I didn't re-read the article, I read the previous AfD and gathered this from that one somehow. So 'abstain.' No, it seems pretty self explanitory that all tennured Harvard, etc. faculty are notable. PROFTEST even says so. Julliard seem to also have this property for permenent faculty. Yes, I left tenured out of my previous statment. JeffBurdges 10:17, 7 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Greensleeves Monologue annotated"[edit]

Completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It's essentially an essay. Just doesn't belong here. Woohookitty(meow) 06:45, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 15:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club Champagnat[edit]

Previously prodded; article unfortunately make no assertion of notability. --Alan Au 07:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, happy with new assertion of notability, article still needs work. Deizio talk 09:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they play at the top (ideally professional, but I know rugby is big enough in Argentina) level of a national sport, and the article was edited to reflect that, I'd be happy to look at this one again. Deizio talk 23:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, added a small paragraph with the information. Note that in Argentina, rugby is an amateur sport (that is, players don't get paid for playing). Although Los Pumas, the Argentina national rugby union team, is the strongest team in America (having won all but one of the american rugby tournaments since their creation, if I recall correctly), local clubs that play in the argentinian "premiere" are amateur, thus they may not be considered as notable for some. -- ReyBrujo 04:43, 6 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 09:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abc1 tv[edit]

Unnotable fansite, fails WP:WEB. Prod tag was removed by article starter. —Xezbeth 07:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per author's request. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Massey[edit]

Prod by User:Wickethewok removed without comment. This is a character in New Reno RPG, also up for deletion. As the game is an IRC online game with a website with no alexa rank and thus nn, this character within the nn game is also most likely nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Reno RPG[edit]

The original prod by User:Wickethewok was removed without explanation. This online IRC-game has a website which doesn't register on Alexa, so I think it is non-notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Welcome to Wikipedia! Enjoying your first day? Deizio talk 14:37, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of capitalism[edit]

This article is fundamentally POV Salvor Hardin 07:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not original research, because it's all sourced. Jesuschex 03:15, 5 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. Article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user (WP:CSD G5). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gili Bar-Hillel[edit]

I am the subject of this article. I don't think I'm particularly notable, there are dozens of Harry Potter translators who do not have their own articles here. I suspect this article was created as a ploy to get me to expose my real identity on Wikipedia, by a sockpuppet of a user who was blocked for doing just that (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting immediate action) I don't see how this article can currently be expanded from a stub. And I'd rather not have my own article. In fact the only reason I'm not deleting it myself is that I believe due process requires this article to be treated as any other. --woggly 08:07, 4 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 09:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex P[edit]

Not notable enough, Delete abakharev 08:11, 4 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. Someone else can do the cleanup work. Lazily yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zatch Bell! characters[edit]

I'm a very big fan of this show, and while I appreciate the content of this page, I have to admit it's rather excessive and borders on listcruft. The information here can be found in various Zatch Bell websites. I feel it would better serve Wikipedia to only have articles on the characters that play a large part in the storyline (Zatch Bell, Kiyo Takamine, Megumi Oumi, Tia, Parco Folgore, Kanchomé, etc.). Danny Lilithborne 09:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, It's funny how people love to stuff things are irrelavent and "fancruft". "It's only of interests to trhe fans!~ neee!" Yeah...that's the thing. Last time I checked, Wikipedia isn't about that sort of distrimination. It actually tries to avoid such things. If we only list iconic and "attractive" fiction, stuff the average joe or jane wants to know about, I think we'd be left with..."Batman, Spiderman and Superman". Now, I don't know about anyone else, but that'd look liked a damned biased and uninformation encyclopedia to me.
However, getting beyond policies and politics for a minute, this is...clearly...not up to Wikipedia's standards. Was a "Deletion request" in order? No, sir! Perhaps a bit of tagging, or more aggressive arguing for a split in the talk page. Feh. No matter. I suppose I support a Rewrite or Split as well since that's what'll happen. Ace Class Shadow 19:23, 5 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 15:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adteractive[edit]

Sounds like advertising of a nn company. Text copied from companies 'about us' page [18]. Article is only edit of User:Saargur who seems to work for them [19]. Optimale Gu 09:09, 4 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of live performances by The Chemical Brothers[edit]

Listcruft. Unencyclopaedic and of no use whatsoever I feel. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:42, 4 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 15:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zam[edit]

Small character in a video games, little to no information. Delete CHANLORD [T]/[C] 09:49, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 15:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Prophet[edit]

I feel he fails to meet notability as just a Forumula One driver who never scored any points and was only in two races. tv316 11:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's what I figured, but it doesn't make much sense to have the non-raced races in black. The layout of Pedro de la Rosa's table is slightly better, but a list showing actual races and points won would be better. Deizio talk 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "all F1 drivers are notable" comments above... where was that decided? I see no purpose for this article's existence. --JerryOrr 17:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think the need to not start removing once notable people when they die overrides the need to consider people in entirely different ways depending on the regularity of their breathing, so I'm calling this a flaw in the guidelines and sticking with the view that all top-level sportspeople are notable. I bet a lot could be uncovered about his career in lower levels of racing, F1 drivers don't (didn't) just get parachuted into their cars from nowhere. Deizio talk 20:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm of course not implying that the second he dies, he is transferred from notable to non-notable. However, he has been dead for 25 years (well before the creation of Wikipedia, and not too long after the creation of me), and the most recent of his two minor contributions to F1 racing was in 1965. I think the idea behind having stricter rules for deceased persons may have been that if they hadn't made a significant contribution in their field during their lifetime, the opportunity has passed (whereas someone still alive could still make a greater contribution). Of course, that's all speculation, as I have absolutely no idea what the intent was behind the guidelines. Whatever, it looks like the consensus will be a keep anyway. Something to think about, though... --JerryOrr 20:59, 4 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 15:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bagni[edit]

An article on this gentleman was deleted last year; the previous AFD discussion is here. The current article is not a re-creation of that one, but a new article on the same subject. Notability is just barely established (he won an award last month), so it's time for a new discussion to decide if he's notable enough for Wikipedia yet. My opinion is he isn't, so delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:08, 4 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald E. Childs[edit]

Self-written vanity page. Doesn't appear to be notable, google shows less than 300 hits. GeeCee 11:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald E. Childs


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 17:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Blackley[edit]

Contested A7 speedy. Article about student film maker. Only claim to fame is an IMDB entry showing that he is an "associate producer" on an upcoming film. A Google search found that this distinction is available to anyone willing to donate $1 to the film.[20] --Allen3 talk 11:49, 4 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 (admin didn't close). Eivindt@c 21:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Newton-Carter[edit]

<<NOMINATION CLOSED - AS SPEEDIED>> Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested A7 speedy. Memorial page about a 9/11 victim with no other indication of notability. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 talk 11:57, 4 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 article, possibly merge content; I will delete Links between politics and football as it basically lacks content, and redirect both Players and politic and Clubs and politic to Football (soccer) culture so that everyone can merge what's can ba saved from these articles. - Liberatore(T) 18:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links between politics and football[edit]

Inherently POV. Possibly NPOV content may be merged with Football (soccer) culture. I am also nominating the following related subpages because of the same reason:

– Elisson • Talk 12:36, 4 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 15:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Parsons[edit]

Tagged a couple of times for speedy but notability is asserted and speedy deletion has been contested previously. Rodger Parsons is a voice actor with two credits on IMDB, it says he does some voices in a Pokemon special but that's not supported by the linked source and even if it was the number of entries on the IMDB article indicates that this is not in any way a notable voice actor. There are notable voice actors, but this really does not sound like one of them. Since the sole performance named is one Pokemon anime, I'd say it's probably Pokemoncruft. Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 4 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. nn-bio and/or website. Madchester 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Donahue[edit]

Aaron Donahue is apparently a "remote viewer" who posts his predictions to his website (alexa rank ~300,000). Guess which is the top website linking in to his site? You got it: Wikipedia. There are 982 Google hits for Aaron Donahue, and even combining all plausible mis-spellings still gets very few hits (around a third the number of hits I get). Occasional radio appearance is also no big deal since I've been interviewed on national radio as well. It is uncritical in the extreme, though has been worse in the past (see Talk:Aaron Donahue).

Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Donahue, kept on the basis of three "votes", but that did include MgM and Andrew Lenahan. Nonetheless, and notwithstanding my usual practice of agreeing with MgM in particular, I still say this is a hagiography of a person of no apparent notability - a reasonably skilled self-promoter at best. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why the article about Aaron Donahue is a problem and a insult to your policies.

I find it rather insulting that some local TV minister, or university professor would be able to to get on this web site without any serious problem. But someone who is out of the mainstream is being haunted by Christian or otherwise anti-esoteric individuals. This has nothing to do with the article being used by the luciferian order to spread there word, if you are unsatisfied about the article you could post a message too improve it.

This article was for the most part written by me, and a individual of Christian denomination. This is NOT fandom written by just luciferians, but it is a way to spread our world view as much as the article on Christianity or Islam is.

RGTraynor: using wikipedia as advertisement has nothing to do with the validation of the article Deizio: same for this gentlemen here, not to mention you don't have to have been on opera to qualify as a remote viewer or a person of special important. JerryOrr: writes and i quote him ´´Don't let this get through`` sadly this sounds more like someone who lets his emotional side rule rather then his logic. The above mentioned facts are more then enough to grant Aaron a article. RPIRED: Sock puppets? How childish and that for someone who calls himself a Bachelor of Science.

Nor does it mean the other luciferians who want to keep the article make very good points, either. It does mean that most of those people are unlike me. Not intellectuals. We are people who sense the world via experiences and emotion.

Cro..Scream

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

The result of the debate was Transfer to WP:MFD. Stifle (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikimedia Projects and Wikias[edit]

It's some crazy way of uniting Wikimedia and Wikia projects, but you have to dance through a hoop first. It's completely ridiculous. Why don't we throw Yahoo Groups and Myspace accounts into the mix, a unite the whole darn web. We have meta to communicate within Wikimedia, Wikia is seperate, and it's fine that way. -- Zanimum 15:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the validity of the page (I'd probably vote delete), but I call inappropriate nomination and suggest it be moved to WP:MFD. Confusing Manifestation 01:03, 5 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 per G4, and protected from re-creation. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Party DS[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article has already been deleted 3 times (1 afd, 2 speedy) previously because of the same reason. The game simply does not exist. All the information in the article is purely fan speculation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Party DS for the first afd discussion. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:14, 4 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 15:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PennYo[edit]

While the gropu seems to have a small, diligent following, it's unreviewed and only self-released. It fails WP:MUSIC ES2 15:15, 4 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 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Montpetit[edit]

Promotional page about a journalist. Google turns up bylines and a mention of his 2005 graduation from Concordia University's journalism school, but nothing much that people have said about him. FreplySpang (talk) 15:19, 4 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 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Characters in the Buffy The Vampire Slayer Universe[edit]

Keep. We have Wikipedia articles on the various social themes in the Buffy The Vampire Slayer, along with specific LGBT Wikipedia articles for the Simpsons, etc.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this one. It seems to be a comprehensive list of every single time anything even remotely related to homosexuality appears on the series. There's significant original research dispersed throughout the article, for example:

I'd vote to listify but for two reasons. Firstly, there doesnt actually appear to be enough characters in the series to justify such a list, and secondly it'd set a rather disturbing precedent. The same logic behind the creation of this article would naturally lead to List of ethnic minorities in the BTVS Universe, List of teachers in the BTVS Universe, List of times a coffee cup appears in the BTVS Universe, etc. Overall I'd vote to delete on grounds of original research and non-notability of the topic. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short man syndrome[edit]

Neologism, made-up "disease" (was prodded by me and de-prodded by 82.9.29.183), delete (nom withdrawn, see below) AJR | Talk 16:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Coat of Arms[edit]

The article is soapbox nonsense. Two duplicates of the article (1) (2) have been put up for speedy deletion have been speedy deleted. User:Custodiansoftime has been reverting tags on put the articles (and is now editing from an IP address after being warned on his talk page). FiggyBee 16:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User/writer of the article is attempting to EDIT the article as per the warning received but everytime an EDIT is made to subtract the "soapbox" presentation of the facts of this item by the author, the original is reposted by someone else! The discussion box was deleted by accident while re-editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs) .

The two other articles are not necessarily duplicates "mascarading" under false pretense but are rather just different in CAPS so that the article can be found however the users type. Author didn't realize this small thing might be a violation and a simple violation for that matter! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your edits by following them with ~~~~. Thanks. Tonywalton  | Talk


The contents of the article are not POV. The article sites Biblical scripture which is noted all over Wikipedia. The article also describes the history of this particular piece of art associated with the topic. Your petition to delete seems more POV than the article now revised (which was originally taken from a website so PARDON the Preacher). I read that you are accustomed to editting and petitioning for deletion in Wikipedia for a personal response; in order to have things "answered" to you. This is not neutral as Wikipedia Policy sets forth. Now articles need be neutral TO THEIR TOPIC but not neutral to the societal debates that some folks create over the topics. At this point there is no violation of Wikipedia Policy in the article as written by the original author, however if you care to cite specifically what elements you feel are POV they will be considered as Wikipedia gices the author th option of editing to get article under Policy before deletion occurs. If you cannot cite specifics than you are pursuing deletion without cause.

Yes and the copyrighted image IS property of the poster so ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 68.33.215.131 17:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Author[reply]

Hi 68.33.215.131, I have posted an explanation at User talk:Custodiansoftime which I hope will help explain to you why this page is not suitable for Wikipedia. FiggyBee 17:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if you wish to retain copyright, do not post it here - go delete it yourself as soon as possible. Right below every edit box is the statement "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." While I'm no lawyer, this essentially gives anyone who finds it the right to make and distribute copies under certain restrictions. GRBerry 17:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: You state your arguements but they are based on your interpretation of the facts posted in this article. So again your submissions are POV, not the article. You debate seeking to learn more as your PROFILE states so you inquire about things that aren't elements of the article so as to get a response for them.

You state that "Firstly, content included in wikipedia must be factual, verifiable and notable. A poem you have written is not factual. If the organisation "Custodians of Time" is notable, you have to show how and why (or preferably, if you are involved in that organisation, let someone else do it).

Secondly, there is already a factual article on the historical "coat of arms of God" at Shield of the Trinity.

Thirdly, everything posted on Wikipedia must be released under an open licence; this means anyone can use it, for any non-commercial purpose. If you are claiming copyright to your poem and drawing, then you can't submit them to Wikipedia.

Fourthly, Wikipedia is not the place for original research (WP:OR). Even if you think you can make an argument from scripture, don't. On the other hand, if someone else has made an argument from scripture, and that argument has been published in a notable publication, then you can report that they have made that argument."

I respond: Firstly, the article's contents do provide this, yet you seek more but there isn't more... it is all right there factual, verifiable and notable. Secondly, the Shield of the Trinity has a different purpose for Christians. The Coat of Arms in the article you disrupt and vandalize this page for is cited from the Bible. Thirdly, there is no violation copyright. There are no commercial rights released and that is allowed. Fourthly, If you suggest I make an arguement than you are trying to engage in a debate and that is not the proper use of this page. In addition, the scripture containing the Full Armor of God has been published in a notable publication; the Bible. The writer of it has established that "arguement" as you call it. Since I did not WRITE the Bible then this is not personal research as you propose it is. I am reporting no other argument except from you. The article is not an arguement nor is it a debate forum it is a factual, verifiable, and notable element from History. It's too bad it bothers you but there is nothing I can do to make these facts untrue. They have all already happened and are just reported to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs) .

Okay, just for you, and because it's 4am and I'm putting off doing my uni assignment, I will critique the entire article on your talk page. ;) FiggyBee 18:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU GRBERRY!! I understand the copyright conflict... will solve this immediately! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs) .

Could you check my most recent change and see that it fits within the Policy as I never meant otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs)

It's better, but you're still making claims (This depiction of the "Full Armor of God", has become accepted by a large group as the Official Christian Coat of Arms or Coat of Arms of God's Family.) that you're not supporting. IF you can provide evidence that there are a large number of people who recognise this coat of arms as a Christian symbol, then you might have the beginnings of a vaild article. BTW, even if this gets deleted now, there's nothing preventing you putting up a (better) article with the same title at a later date. Oh, and please remember to sign your comments - preferably with your account rather than as an anonymous IP. FiggyBee 18:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity, spam, naked evangelism. Everything is wrong. A redirect to Shield of the Trinity might discourage re-creation. -- RHaworth 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: If there is one thing that this article is not, it is original: the concept it addresses is something which to my certain knowledge, based on verbal conversations and a pamphlet which has probably now perished has been in Public Domain for at least 30 years. Nor is it utter nonsense, though it may not suit some people (who may or may not be members of the Cabal) on Wiki. Whether it is notable enough, and whether it could not be merged elsewhere, are things I will leave to others. -- Simon Cursitor 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I click on each user who wants this article deleted I see some reference to anti-Christian perspective. Now, I don't care what your POV is. But it seems there is some "ganging up here" in relation to that tangent which is not appropriate for the Wikipedia Community. Granted this article may have started with some "preachiness", HOWEVER, it has since been edited down and cleaned up and is in line with Wikipedia Policies. AS IT IS NOW, it is a good addition to this legitimate encyclopedia, but somehow I think arguing that point to most of the opposition here will be falling on deaf ears. Might I remind you that this page is a discussion for the article AS IT IS CURRENTLY and as to whether it ought to be deleted for violation of Wikipedia Policy or Standards, this is not a forum to debate Christian/Anti-Christian POVs. Please take note of this and Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.. Be patient as I learn to use/edit Wikipedia68.33.215.131 14:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start on the "poor little persecuted Christians" line. Yes, I'll agree that the article is now less preachy. However, all it is now is a description of a passage from Ephesians; it doesn't describe a coat of arms, much less demonstrate why that coat of arms is notable. It still fails the notability and verifiability tests, and is still obviously just an advertisement for your website. It's just not going to fly. FiggyBee 14:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the above as an unfounded accusation of bad faith. Kindly withdraw it immediately. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether that's addressed to my comment or 68.33.215.131's - however, on reflection, I realise that some of what I said was unfair, and I apologise. FiggyBee 16:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to the comment by 68.33.215.131 that As I click on each user who wants this article deleted I see some reference to anti-Christian perspective. Now, I don't care what your POV is. But it seems there is some "ganging up here" in relation to that tangent which is not appropriate for the Wikipedia Community., not to your comments. Curse those pesky indents. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the "poor little..." statement, you seem to assume that the author is Christian?!... and THAT would be a personal comment toward them... not allowed. The fact is that the article references Christian belief or culture and it seems that those who oppose anything Christian might also oppose this article for personal reasons, so that isn't the Wikipedia Community's purpose or problem for that matter. Thank you "ALBA" I like it!! 68.33.215.131 19:01, 5 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 outside AfD process by User:Luigi30, probably what would have happened anyway but feel free to take it to WP:DRV if you think it's worth it. Just zis Guy you know? 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Scudamore[edit]

A biography of User:Whaleto, whose name is not a secret. John Scudamore and vaccination gets ~275 ghits (about 10% of what I get), posting prolifically to Usenet does not constitute notability and that is pretty much the sole claim to notability. John apparently doesn't want this article on Wikipedia, but that is not a reason for keeping it. The site (which is a compendium of crankery, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto) does get an Alexa ranking of around 80k, but Wikipedia is the top site linking in, a fact which may not be unrelated to John's contentious addition of his own site to multiple articles. Just zis Guy you know? 16:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct. Luigi speedied it between my removing the speedy tag (as notability was asserted) and my nominating for AfD. I think the outcome is not in doubt, I was erring on the side of caution - and just in case anyone could supply details of a substantive claim to notability. Just zis Guy you know? 18:15, 4 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 in theory, merge to Cyber Girl of the Year; however, we also have Cyber Girl of the Month and Cyber Girl of the Week, and these three articles contain the current content of this article already, so I am deleting this article. - Liberatore(T) 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Sue Cooper[edit]

Ran across this article with only one edit. Removed a redlinked image, cleaned the format, and put in a stub. As the article has only one sentence for a minor notable person I question if it should stay. Let the community decide. No vote from me either way on it. StuffOfInterest 16:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If cybergirls don't qualify for articles, we're going to need a lot of AfD's. Fan1967 20:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was only talking about Amy Sue Cooper. There's too little information of her in this article. JIP | Talk 04:08, 5 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. --Ezeu 10:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snapshot aesthetic[edit]

Vanity page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied and protected. Tawker 20:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Clary[edit]

Here is the previous discussion [22] IrishGuy 17:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was actually deleted twice today under Johnny Lee Clary, requiring protection. -- FRCP11 18:08, 4 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 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star (strategies + architecture)[edit]

Contested PROD. No evidence of meeting the criteria at WP:CORP; smells like advertising to me. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 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 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Tokuhiro[edit]

Delete minor actor below the radar of notability. Deprodder said "object to deletion, meets minimal notability standards per imdb". only 3 minor roles. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:16, 4 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 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police Heroes[edit]

This article doesn't even make clear what the subject is, let alone why it's notable. Google search for "Police Heroes" "And So It Begins" (the 1st episode, I guess) reveals 2 hits! Only 1 goes anywhere--to a 2-post no-name blog. This in non-notable and should be deleted. I'll also tag charcter sites Chris Russell and Francis Willis (disco bar owner) for deletion. (these were speedy tagged by User talk:Malber) -- Scientizzle 17:25, 4 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 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Old World Trader[edit]

SPAM Rklawton 17:26, 4 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 15:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heggra[edit]

Why does it matter how many of whatever from any given author? Worst case may require prefixing of a given reference's contribution... Is there any issue of space? Commentary below is understood only if there is a constraint on space and/or a system complexity issue...


Kirby is a big name, but we don't need an article on every single character he created. Nn. Eusebeus 17:28, 4 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 15:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bonney[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor a repository for genealogy studies. Eusebeus 17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Transwiki Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bargaining power[edit]

not encyclopedic, its a definition Salvor Hardin 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki first, IMO. TheProject 20:29, 5 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 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Political Rich List[edit]

This list is inherently flawed. The criteria for inclusion is arbitrary. The list is supposed to include politicians of past and present, yet no criteria is established to compare a rich person of, say, the 1920s with a rich person of the 1930s. The entry itself admits there are problems with verifying the information. There are also problems with the neutrality of the article and original reserach. Fluit 17:59, 4 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 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 32[edit]

Prod removed without comment. Non notable. IrishGuy 18:04, 4 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 - Liberatore(T) 19:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. I.V. Hilliard[edit]

Reverend Hilliard, although apparently truly annointed, also appears to be nn. Fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 18:20, 4 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. Metamagician3000 07:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime characters[edit]

Listcruft, indiscriminate information, huge; where should I start? At best, this should be trimmed down into List of notable anime characters, but even then you'll have WP:V issues. I say just burninate the whole thing. Danny Lilithborne 18:23, 4 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. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice the mop[edit]

Nonsense. Burbster 18:42, 4 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 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Nations[edit]

Notability not established, no Mobygames link. Appears to be a promotional piece for an unpublished game. --Alan Au 18:53, 4 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 userfy - Liberatore(T) 19:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pie in the Sky Bakery & Internet Cafe[edit]

My prod was removed by the author and only other editor of this page, User:Pie in the Sky Bakery & Internet Cafe. There are now claims to notability there, so I'll let the community decide whether this should remain. Grandmasterka 19:05, 4 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 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Naresh Babu[edit]

Unnotable person, I don't think murdering a spouse qualifies someone for an article. —Xezbeth 19:12, 4 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Yager[edit]

Amwaycruft Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:15, 4 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Medal of Honor recipients[edit]

Article cannot be comprehensive and is of no worthwhile use Ed 19:13, 4 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hapirott[edit]

Is this real? It doesn't show up on google much for something that's supposedly an internet term... I recommend either transwiki whatever's verifiable to wiktionary or delete. Grandmasterka 19:18, 4 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 patent nonsense (e.g.: "Dark Crowman (Andrew David Stewart), is a Marvel Comics Dark Crowman expand the dramatic potential of the Superhero comic books Hope to expand the personal of new.") and likely hoax. Just zis Guy you know? 22:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Crowman (comics)[edit]

Google comes up empty except for Wikipedia pages. Possible hoax. -- Curps 19:41, 4 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 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop art type2[edit]

Nonexistent movement. If this actually existed as the name for a modern artistic movement, it would yield more than 91 or 162 Google hits (depending on whether you put a space in type 2 or not), nearly all of which seem to be by virtue of its appearance on Wikipedia. --Michael Snow 19:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Daddy Long Legs. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOLFPAC[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. DarthVader 01:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Examples of when articles may be bundled into a single nomination: "An article about a band and three articles about its members, none of whom has done anything else outside of the band." Buddha, DJ Grim X, Stitch, Genocide, MC Entropy, and M.S.G. also have articles. Sandy 02:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reichsattendentführer[edit]

Probable hoax. 19 google hits. —Home Row Keysplurge 19:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, this has sat ((unsourced)) for more than a month. [28] Time to either fix it NOW or put it out of its misery. Dr Zak 13:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also to point out, there is no rule or regulation in Wikipedia that a time limit exists to provide sources or risk deletion or ana rticle. I've seen unsourced articles lay for over a year. And, there is this thing called the real world that sometimes gets in the way of Wikipedia. Facing marriage and a deployment to the Middle East, finding sources for this article was not high on my list of things to do! :-o -Husnock 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is. WP:V serves to prevent Wikipedia from decaying into a graffiti board for anecdotes made up in school one day. Dr Zak 11:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps "anecdote" would be a better word. —Home Row Keysplurge 14:11, 5 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Left my Wallet in Cafe Nero[edit]

No Vote - This article was listed for speedy deletion and I can't find any proof that the movies exists. It links to a disambiguation page for the author and a subway stop that looks questionable. Did the subway stop exist? Is it named after this move maker? The only person on the disambig page looks American, not British. -Tεxτurε 19:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No. No one has a "rightful place" here. Wikipedia is not myspace. If, at some point in the future, the film is commercially released and receives public attention, it may be eligible. Fan1967 21:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's for values of talking about it a lot which exclude any forums indexed by Google (i.e. most of them). Just zis Guy you know? 17:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate abuse[edit]

Was recommended for deletion before -- expansion never happened Salvor Hardin 19:58, 4 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 - Liberatore(T) 19:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Montoya[edit]

Vanity/non-n. See Google results.[29] Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a talent manager for the actor, Levi Montoya. I am the primary author of this page and I'd like some assistance - if possible - in keeping this article in Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DMon Films (talk • contribs)
Both Levi Montoya (actor) and the film, O Best Beloved, Six Honest Men have recently been submitted to IMDb, and are being considered for publication on the database. I represent Levi Montoya, as does Dani's Agency of Phoenix, AZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.150.31 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment The problem is that he will then be an actor whose only credit is a short subject. Since there is no distribution for short subjects, this means that it will be seen by a handful of people who attend a few indy film festivals. Not only will 99% of people never see it, they will never even hear of it. Fan1967 01:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only has this actor starred in the short subject film, but he co-stars in a feature length film - currently in production in Los Angeles. Furthermore, IMDb regards short subject films sufficient for listing on its database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.150.31 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Movies "in production" are given no weight unless they are extremely high-profile and verifiable (a new James Bond feature, for example). Many movies are reported in production and never get made. Others get made and go straight to video, or are never commercially released at all. Fan1967 13:21, 5 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 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Allen[edit]

Delete - This user's company was deleted per AfD. No reason to retain the advertising for the user himself. Not notable. -Tεxτurε 20:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I agree. Besides, any article that uses the word "Strategic" 3 times to describe business consulting services is advertising. ;)NawlinWiki 20:58, 4 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of school pranks[edit]

This article is uncyclopedic, contains many unverified things and also shouldn't exist, because it encourages these stupid pranks, which are definitely wrong to do. Free for all 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, Google hits trumps reliable sources with this kind of cruft. People will vote keep on each individual prank, uncited or not, because "I've heard of it" - even if they've heard of it because they made it up themselves. Yes, a very cynical view, but this is why we have undeletable crap articles like Cleveland Steamer and donkey punch - we dleeted the list of purported sex moves. Just zis Guy you know? 22:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like one for the Village Pump to me . . .mgekelly 15:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that what you'll get is three or four hundred short articles of questionable quality each lacking any reliable sources but undeletable because the number of google hits is assumed to mean that somewhere there must be a reliable source. Pen 15 is one I remember. Just zis Guy you know? 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept may be notable, but the list? "list of school pranks" gets <300 ghits, many of them mirrors. Not your most perspicacious AfD input :-) Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • that is a silly comment when "school prank" gets 35,000 google hits a list of these is noteworthy really Yuckfoo 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell they need no encouraging. But while I can sympathise with thoise who simply discount this article as a festering pool of cruft, if a few people were to watch it and kill the unreferenced ones which do not Google (which is about half of them by a quick count) the list will be just about manageable and will stave off attmpts to create articles for each one - which we really don't need. Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, obviously not. Speedy keep is not an option in this case. And this is not a vote, so "obviously" probably does not count as a rationale in this case. Just zis Guy you know? 20:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEPER —the preceding unsigned comment was the only Wikipedia contribution by 216.233.88.218

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. My vote counts whether or not I leave a comment. If you want a more detailed comment from me, try this out then: Keep per TheGrappler (Notorious4life 05:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment This is not a vote. It's a discussion.-Polotet 16:35, 8 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. AndyZ 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsjournalists.com[edit]

Notable? -- Zanimum 20:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siena Capital Management, LLC[edit]

Seems like advertising of a nonnotable business (to me and at least 1 other editor who also gave it a prod}. Page creator disagrees - let's discuss. NawlinWiki 20:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no basis for the assertion that this is advertising. Did you read new addition of content on efficient frontier? Further, no contact information of any kind. No website info, no email, no phone, no fax, no address. Nothing. Did you read where the founders of the firm hold doctorates, master, cpa? This is a serious noteworthy business in its region of the country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jurisdoctor (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was Keep, per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article should be deleted and then softly redirected to Wiktionary. Free for all 20:54, 4 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 by Jni as ((nn-bio)). Stifle (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhey[edit]

vanity, not notable, unencyclopedic JBEvans 21:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user removed my tags twice. The page is a vanity page, contains no notable material, has been listed before by another user, changed the name to a redirect (Soyesh Lakhey was the first) and contains no links in. JBEvans 21:09, 4 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Medtia[edit]

This article is for a novelist whose work has yet to be published. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Google search for "Vijay Medtia" comes up with only 140 hits. Article creator User:Tomallwood2006 also created the article for Mr. Medtia's agent, Eve White. These are a few reasons why this article should be deleted. -- Scientizzle 21:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including the incorrectly capitalized Vijay medtia in this nomination. It conatins the exact same text. -- Scientizzle 21:16, 4 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omigod[edit]

Seemingly unverifiable, as I can find no sources for it, and think that it's unlikely that there are any. Bringing it to AfD to see if anyone else can find some. Ziggurat 21:23, 4 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Plantation[edit]

A record label not listed on Allmusic, listed bands do not have articles. It's had nearly four years to make its mark and appears not to have done so thus far. Around 650 ghits. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheProject 06:50, 5 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 - Liberatore(T) 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Mcilwraith[edit]

This article was originally a hoax article by a guy allegedly passing himself off as something he wasn't. Now it's an article about the hoax. Nominated for speedy deletion; speedy removed with reasonable request to bring it here; speedy added again by the same person without comment. So I'm bringing it here so we can decide its future. This is a technical nomination, so no opinion from me, although in this case I reserve the right to add one later below if I wish. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed Nash references b/c Nash has been deemed by Wikipedia as not being a reliable references *Keep. It is now noteworthy. --Alabamaboy 14:26, 5 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 per A7. Elf-friend 10:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Riggle[edit]

Article was speedied for non-notability. {hangon} added with talk page note that notability would be asserted later. An admin also requested that references should be supplied and asked if result would meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Author's response was to remove speedy without adding references or asserting notability. Easiest to course therefore is to bring it here for wider opinion. Technical nomination - no opinion from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ξ's comment is untrue. I added a reference to Dr. Riggle's dissertation. mitcho/芳貴 21:47, 4 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 - Liberatore(T) 19:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Escandon[edit]

While not vanity, this "director" is fairly non-notable. A google search has a lot of returns on other Escandons, mainly a politician with the same name. I don't think that every minor television editor should have their own article on Wikipedia. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 21:43, 4 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruaidhri Conroy[edit]

Question - is RoryRules2 your sockpuppet? -- Robocoder 22:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What does that mean, and how does it affect this page? -- Dr.Boogins 23:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - just a point of clarification; the page history says RoryRules2 made the edits, yet you laid claim to being the main contributor. -- Robocoder 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Rory Rules copied this page (Ruaidhri Conroy) from my page Ruadhri Conroy. It seems I mispelt the name, but RoryRules2 cleared this up by creating a new page using the data from the orignal page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Ruadhri_Conroy

-- Dr.Boogins 23:12, 4 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 non-notable bio. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Clary[edit]

This page has already been deleted three times under different name. It is vanity. It has been voted on, yet the creator (who is also the subject of the article) insists on creating it repeatedly. IrishGuy 22:03, 4 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. AndyZ 21:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O Best Beloved, Six Honest Men[edit]

NN 23-minute film,"will be entered in several film festivals". Starring Levi Montoya, (AfD). Fan1967 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied as patent nonsense/prank/test. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteenamo Kiev[edit]

The page seems to be a narrative and non-encyclopedic article.--Janarius 13:58, 4 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eliteweb[edit]

This looks very much like spam. An article which sprang fully-formed to life from the keyboard of a single user, for a private company which launched its web portal in October 2005. Replete with many external links, but no evidence of meeting WP:CORP that I can see. Written in POV terms (which can be fixed but absent a credible reason to care may well not be) Just zis Guy you know? 22:45, 4 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) 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar Building[edit]

Neologism, no relevant google hits. Reeks of nonsense/prank. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Could be verifiable outside of Google; see Scout Hall as an example. Article needs more context, though. TheProject 05:44, 5 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) 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine[edit]

A distributed web crawler project with an Alexa rank of >40,000 - and guess what? Wikipedia is the otp site linking in. Currently in alpha. Lots of "aims to", not much "has". Just zis Guy you know? 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to neutral because a number of news articles have been laid out in support of notability. However, I would like to respond to a few things, namely that 1) I knew OneLook before I knew Wikipedia, 2) please refrain from bringing in users for the sake of voting in an RfA, 3) as JzG has mentioned, the fact that there are other possible non-notable articles on Wikipedia does not mean that another non-notable article on Wikipedia may not be deleted, and 4) please do not make personal attacks, which comments like "you besmirch Wikipedia's name" can be easily construed as. The author has laid out a decent case against the AfD, I wish him best of luck in his project and look forward to a time when Wikipedia has a featured article on his project that won't be listed on AfD because it will have become very notable by then. TheProject 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the founder of Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine project. It appears to be that desire to delete this legit article is totally wrong: if you bothered to check out website you'd see that we have achieved a LOT in a very short time, for example our index available for searching is 1 bln pages. How many search engines in the world have achieved that and how many of them based on principles of distributed computing that allow normal people to join the project?
The fact that Alexa's (rather questionable) rank is over 40,000 or any other value should have no effect on decision to delete this article that is factural and can be verified easily. If this is a requirement of Wikipedia to only have articles about pages that are ranked more than 40,000 by Alexa, then please show me that rule. :-/
We actually got into mainstream press recently, see article (it was actually published on paper as well as online) from The Guardian: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1736761,00.html and there are reprints around the world, what more do you want, big flashy TV ads? :-/
regards,
Alex Chudnovsky
  • Comment: index size is not an indicator of notability. The Guardian article, however, could change some minds. TheProject 17:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, that article also has a lot of "want to", not so much "has", to incorrectly quote JzG. TheProject 17:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not listed on AfD because it is new. The article is listed on AfD because its notability is in serious question. If we find a historical article whose notability is also similarly dubious, it will go to AfD also. TheProject 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for your assertion on '"aims to", not much "has"' then please be specific on what _exactly_ is untrue on the Wikipedia article. Of course we have far reaching aims, which have not being fully achieved yet, however, if you going to delete all articles that declare some aims then I suggest start from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista and if you don't like name "alpha version", then please lets delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_News - after all its beta, though it may have high Alexa rank.
While I am naturally biased, it seems to be that desire to delete this article is totally unjustifiable and in my view not supported by Wikipedia policies: specifically your reference to Alexa's rank is totally irrelevant as it comes from Windows only toolbar from a very niche segment of people who chose to install it, and if you use it as indicator of worthiness for Wikipedia then consider deleting Linux related entries.
So to sum up, please refer me to either wrong facts in the article or relevant policy of the Wikipedia that requires deletion of article on the basis of Alexa's rank. If you can't do neither, then IMO you should withdraw proposal for deletion, apology is optional though would be welcomed.
Alex Chudnovsky
Nobody claims that the article is untrue. The article has been placed on AfD on the basis of its non-notability. All untrue articles are (or should be) deleted from Wikipedia, but not all articles deleted from Wikipedia are deleted because they are untrue. In fact, most deleted articles are 100% accurate, but also 100% non-notable. I'm not the one who brought up Alexa rank, but it is but one way -- in my opinion, not a very good one, and as I said, I'm not the one who brought it up -- to point out an subject's notability, or lack thereof. Also, the fact that Wikipedia is the top site linking in casts considerable doubt on the notability of the article subject. TheProject 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is subjective matter: we are the leading distributed computing project of this type (building search engine) and if you care to read relevant sites you will that, for example here: http://distributedcomputing.info/news.html and http://distributedcomputing.info/ap-internet.html#majestic12 we are also in DMOZ.org directory.
The fact that Alexa says something about Wikipedia is irrelevant - Alexa has very flawed stats that are biased and using them to justify your actions is just laughable to me as I've spend some good time in web analytics. Don't believe me? Check Alexa's traffic report for distributedcomputing.info - the best site on distributed computing efforts: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=distributedcomputing.info&url=distributedcomputing.info Its very notable to those in the area of distributed computing, but Alexa says it has rank of more than 231,000!!! Though I am certain that they are more known than us!
I mean for Christ's sake, you saying that building alternative search engine is not notable? You mean that achiving 10 bln crawled pages and building index of 1 bln pages is not worth noting? What's worth noting then, anything that Alexa says is Top 40,000 site visited by fraction of users who happan to use Alexas toolbar?
We are certainly noteable enough to have more than 100 people join the effort, and have UK national press write about us as well as get invited for New Media awards in the UK, how could that be not noteable? If you are not interested in distributed computing then you are highly unlikely to be able to judge what's worth noting and what's not, in which case it would be better if you directed your efforts in deleting articles in other areas.
Here are links around the world about us:
  1. The Guardian (big national UK paper) http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1736761,00.html
  2. http://www.contractoruk.com/002593.html
  3. One UK IT magazine that I can't name right now as it will be in the next issue
  4. Norwegian big (was told biggest) IT mag: http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=297379
  5. Russian huge news site: http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2006/04/07/distributed/
And many blog entries, but more importantly we are the leading project of that kind in the whole world, and if that's not noteable then I don't know what is, its not like we were founded yesterday either: almost 18 months actually.
The injustice that is taking place here is really making me aggravated - if I did not check the article today (first in many weeks) I would not even have noticed that it was sneakily marked for deletion and it would have been gone in 5 days had I not posted here, this is just not right: check the links in the article and try to find someone more noteable than us in this area.
And by the way, the article in the Guardian certainly refers to future plans, what's your problem with that? Of course there are things that are planned, it would be stupid not to have plans, and its perfectly legitimate to voice those plans especially since you can check what we have achieved by now, and if you looked at historical promises you'd see that what we have achieved now was planned before, so if you see problem with that then its really your personal point of view to believe them or not. As far as I am concerned article about us on here is factually correct and without doubt we are the most noteable project of that kind in the whole world.
AlexC
Alexa guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Google_test#Alexa_test specifically note: "However, Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites for several reasons". Therefore it seems to me that Alexa's rank should be irrelevant.
We are in a list of search engines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines
Take a note how many search engines there, notice how many search engines in Distributed category, perhaps there is someone more noteable in this category, or perhaps whole category should be removed because Alexas says so?
Finally, consider using Google test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Google_test
Who is listed on the first page for "distributed search engine" or even "distributed search"? They use geo-targeting so exact position is different, but its #1 for me for search in the UK, note that there are 54 mln matches.
AlexC
Majestic-12 & Wikipedia pojects have the same ultimate goal.
From The Wikipedia:About about page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
Begun in 2001, Wikipedia has rapidly grown into the largest reference website on the Internet. The content of Wikipedia is free, written collaboratively by people from all around the world. This website is a wiki, which means that anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer can edit, correct, or improve information throughout the encyclopedia, simply by clicking the edit this page link.
Majestic-12
Begun in late 2004 Majestic-12 has rapidly grown into a large Distributed Search Engine on the internet. The content of the Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine is crawled collaboratively by people from all around the world. This search Engine is a Distributed Computing Project, which means that anyone with access to an Internet connected computer can participate and improve the collaboration of information simply be crawling the web using a Search Node.
The project has been noted by the Media already and will grow with the help of active participants just the same as Wikipedia. To delete this entry from Wikiepedia is to crush another potential knowledge base that is BEING BUILT BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.
Grubee
I have provided list of articles from independent sources, I also demonstrated that Wikipedia's own words say against usage of Alexa to determine notability, thus your arguement of this article being not-notable does not hold because you rely on flawed Alexa's stats and totally disregard information published by well respected independent sources like The Guardian. If you do not like something in their article then its your problem, however you can't credibly claim that the project is not notable because this is completely false.
Furthermore, its clear that you did not bother to read our site at all - http://www.majestic12.co.uk/about.php in short we can be for search engines what Wikipedia is for Encyclopedias, even though vandals really should be kept in check.
If you don't believe that our project is important then don't join it, but don't vandalise valid articles by deleting them: try CREATING something rather than deleting. And with all due respect - the choice of name is not really up to you and the fact that it may or may not change in the future should not concern you in the least: if you don't like that then delete Microsoft Vista's page because its name was changed from Longhorn. -alexc
Your original deletion words are these: "A distributed web crawler project with an Alexa rank of >40,000 - and guess what?", I posted link on Wikipedia which clearly states that Alexas data should NOT be used for purposes of notability because of known flaws, yet you based your deletion arguement on this flawed approach and refuse to withdraw it, instead making up further accusations as you go. For starters I'd like you to withdraw Alexa's arguement (low rank) completely before we move to other alleged issues with the article: if the article violates specific points of policy then please post those points, dont send away to pages and pages of text, it is YOU who should provide exact points that the article allegedly violates. So, do you withdraw your Alexa's arguement, yes or no?
And look what we have here in your own reference: WP:SOFTWARE I qoute: Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if it meets _ANY_ of the following criteria:" <-- see word ANY? Now continue reading at the link that we qualify for criteria: 1, 2 - we have independent sources verifying it, see The Guardian link (and it was actually printed inreal paper, not just online).
You are 100% wrong on this one, be honest enough to admit to mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexchudnovsky (talk • contribs) .
Calm down already. Assume good faith and be civil. Demanding an apology is not going to help you at all. Alexa ranking isn't everything, obviously, but it isn't nothing, either, and JzG didn't use Alexa ranking as everything, as you seem to make him out to be doing. He also pointed out that the top site linking in is WP, a legitimate concern which hasn't been addressed at all. As for telling JzG to post policies that the article violates, he just posted them. I might add that the article violates WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN, too. About the only thing I would give it notability for is the press coverage, but, as has already been mentioned, that happens to have a lot of future goals and not a lot of accomplishments to date. (And lest you point out Vista again, Vista is a continuation of an already notable OS series, and also a subject which is notable simply for the fact that it is being anticipated by so many.)
Let me put it this way: if an average user, not connected with the project, finds Majestic-12 notable enough that they feel there should be an article about it, then the project probably meets notability requirements. An article about someone should not be created by someone who has something to do with the article subject. If it has already been created (as it is in this case), the question then becomes: if we deleted it, could we reasonably expect the article to be re-created by an average user not associated with the subject? If not, then the project is clearly non-notable outside of the project itself. TheProject 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be that rules of Wikipedia are not being followed here: I have provided link to Wikipedia entry clearly stating that Alexa should not be used for purposes of notability, since the original reason for deletion was such rank it means that automatically such deletion request should be invalid.
Additionally I have actually provided independent articles about us, let me just refer you to the Wikipedia's rules:
WP:SOFTWARE I quote: Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if it meets _ANY_ of the following criteria:" <-- see word ANY? Now continue reading at the link that we qualify for criteria: 1, 2 - we have independent sources verifying it, see The Guardian link (and it was actually printed inreal paper, not just online). Thus we qualify for inclusion and your suggestions about average user are just your view: according to the rules of Wikipedia this article has 100% right to exist on Wikipedia.
You mention a lot of goals and no accomplishments and this is blatantly untrue, I suggest that you make specific accusation of what you think was and was not achieved as with all due respect you did not put into it a 1/100th of time to actually have a sound judgment over the issue.
And also, lets not dig new accusations just as previous one fail: the original claim was based on Alexa, and it should not have been, thus should be withdrawn, if you later find that article violates other rules of Wikipedia then do new delete and we can discuss it.
So can I please ask you not to use your personal views but stick to the rules of Wikipedia. alexc 20:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using my personal views. If you're talking about my "average user" comment, that's a paraphrase of WP:VAIN, an official guideline, which states: "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." (emphasis mine) Secondly, as I've stated already, Alexa ranks may not be almighty, but they are not completely irrelevant, either.
To address your other points: WP:SOFTWARE is not official policy, and as it says on its own page, is a "rough guideline" (emphasis mine). Furthermore, new reasons for deletion can be added to an existing AfD. Nothing says that we have to judge this AfD based on merits of Alexa ranking, wait for this AfD to terminate, then start another AfD based on the fact that it violates all of the other policies that JzG has pointed out.
You seem to be hung up on this Alexa point, when there are so many other reasons JzG and others have pointed out why the article fails to assert notability. TheProject 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not written by me - it was written by a person who came across with our project last year and thought to create a Wiki article on it. This is your "average user" if you like, he did not know about us before but once learnt wrote that article and from my side I just keep it up to date so that quoted numbers (ie indexed page) are correct.
I see now that you refer to WP:SOFTWARE as not policy, however it was mentioned above as something we violate. You now mention its spam - which it clearly is not, and also vanity - which it is not either because it was not created by me and there is independent confirmation of importance of the project by the Guardian and others. What more do you require - billboards and TV ads? alexc
Here is similar Wiki entry for similar project (that is now shutdown): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grub_distributed_web-crawling_project Why is it okay to have that entry (and many others), but this one is not okay? alexc
Here is more food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_search_engines <---- see how many search engines listed there? Over 100, so, should in your view then most of them be deleted also? Is this how you view Wikipedia - only tells about dominant things like in this case would be Google/Yahoo/MSN? alexc
  • Comment: No - I would not nominate them because those entries there are legitimate articles. It is _you_ who wishes to delete this article and I am pointing out that not only you providing no valid Wiki rules, but even if what you proposed was correct, then it would require deletion of most of Search Engines listed there, so, I am challenging you to apply _same_ standard of scrutiny to all articles in Search Engine category rather than pick on someone. In fact I just noticed you did nominate some other search engine too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eliteweb&action=history so why did you nominate tham and us, but not (for example) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneLook ? Why is it you not deleting almost all of the search engines listed there since many of them are less notable (and certainly less unique) than us?
I think you'll find that I know a little about policy. Last time I checked I was an admin. Yup, seems I still am. Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you know policy so well and since you are an admin, then can you please explain me why this article was nominated for deletion but many other about other search engines were not, example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneLook Can you please spell out clearly what exactly makes that URL not break Wikipedia rules. alexc
At this rate, he won't be admin much longer. Ignoring WP rules and such. BarkerJr
Well, this is my last post on this topic: I am grateful to supporters of the project who not only take part in very Wiki-like project, but also created Wiki page in the first place, sad to see that actions of few people on here throw shadow on good Wikipedia image, shame, but time will judge who was right - I certainly hope you will still be admin(s) by then, the only worry I have is that other legit pages will fall prey to your unjust actions. One thing I will tell you though - at Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine power will not be held in hands of few individuals and no deletions of sites from index will be possible just because few men have got big egos and apply double standards. Shame on you - you besmirch Wikipedia's name. That's my last post on the topic - hope other articles about search engines will be spared deletion. alexc 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a rationale for my new position at the top of the page. TheProject 00:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for change of mind, but I really think that "2) please refrain from bringing in users for the sake of voting in an RfA" is yet another unjust thing: you can't seriously be expecting people to check article every day, I noticed it was marked for deletion today by pure chance: last time I checked it was many weeks ago, so if I were to follow your logic then it would work like this: Admin A marks article for deletion, if its not the most well known piece of info that is edited by many editors then its all probability nobody will actually object to it and article gets deleted, and you automatically disqualify relevant parties in effect allowing only those who are totally unrelated to the thing to voice their opinion that in their view the project is not notable (of course for YOU it is not because you may have never heard of it and don't take independent views as well as those who participate in it in consideration!), if that's not flawed process then I don't know what is. And you mention that you knew OneLook - so what, does it make it better article and more deserving one? Does it mean just because something new appears it should not be listed on Wiki simply because you have not heard of that before? The whole situation is really a farce - if this is how decision making is working here then its clearly very flawed: rules should be rules for everyone, if article about Majestic-12 is not deserving despite having recent major newspapers talking about us, then you should delete many many Wikipedia articles like yesterday. Anyway I am abtaining from posting any further and reserve the right to follow appeal processes that are available on Wikipedia: its about time to check first hand if Wikipedia critisisms are justified. alexc 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, policy on bringing in users for AfD is something I can't change, and it is almost indistinguishable from sockpuppetry. AfDs have always traditionally counted votes by more established users (which I, by the way, do NOT claim to be, in any way, shape, or form) as more weighty as those of less established users. As for Wikipedia having all these other articles, as has been mentioned here already, the fact that these articles exist is not a good reason for this AfD not to exist. TheProject 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And its not bothering you in the least that if there are scores more articles in the same category of Internet Search Engines that should also be deleted _IF_ AfD against this one stands? Are you actually going to proceed deleting them or just ignore them as the "job" here is done? Did it not occur to you that if there is a rule effectively outlawing most entries in that category, then such rule ought to be wrong? This whole conversation makes me feel like I am back in USSR: no matter what you say, no matter how genuine the situation is (what more notability you want apart from dedicated article in UK national newspaper, a Super Ball TV ad maybe is needed to change your mind?), the people with power have their own way despite common sense. This is really not about this article - I can assure you that I won't lose sleep over removal of the article, however this injustice seems to expose a serious flaw in Wikipedia that really can't be left unopposed. What would you say if I checked automatically all articles with external urls and marked all of them for deletion that have Alexa's rank below 40,000 would that be acceptable? alexc 01:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already made my opinion known in my blurb at the top, and this is the last I'll say of the matter: if there are other non-notable articles that need to be deleted, then Wikipedia will take care of them in due process. (I urge you to have a look at WP:POINT before doing anything, though.) And I still believe you are completely hung up over this Alexa thing. It's not the only item in the AfD. As for now, though, I'm just going to let this AfD run its course. No point in wrangling anymore -- you've made your point repeatedly, and it's a good one, and I've repeatedly tried to convey to you that the Alexa argument is not the only argument, nor is it a strong argument. I hold neutral on this AfD. Okay? TheProject 03:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the ones which are notable, obviously. Reductio ad absurdam: because the article on my garden shed is deleted as a non-notable building, the article on the Tower of London must also be deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not suggesting to delete any articles in Internet search engines category, what I am saying however if _this_ article is deemed not deserving (despite national press coverage) then many articles in the category should be also deleted leaving a handful of prominent SEs like Google/MSN/Yahoo. This would clearly be less than sum of human knowledge that Wikipedia wants to achieve: it seems to me that you've made your mind and no rational arguement will change it, I hope people in arbitration are more reasonable. alexc 12:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A searchengine wich visits millions of websites with hundreds of volunteers, leaving bot signatures in millions of awstats pages of websites an the searchengine getting used by lots of visitors and for wich 3th parties are developing tools for and is written about in national newspapers seems a bit more notable then your gardenshed. I agree this M12 DSE is not as big as Google but still i think its worth to keep the article about the project and this new way of distributed searching. -RetroX
  • Add these neutral external references to the article?
              1. The Guardian (big national UK paper) http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1736761,00.html
              2. http://www.contractoruk.com/002593.html
              3. Big Norwegian online IT mag: http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=297379
              4. Russian huge news site: http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2006/04/07/distributed/
nsaa @ 2006–05–07 07:28Z
* Added these links to the article. Did I violate any rules according to pages marked for deletion? nsaa @ 2006-05-07 15:12Z
  • Comment. Good job adding the links; improving an article up for AfD is accepted and even encouraged. My main concern is that a small group of people seem to have vested personal interests in having their article listed on Wikipedia, and that's really not what Wikipedia is all about. The perception of meatpuppetry doesn't help either. Until I'm comfortable that the subject is well-known enough that people unaffiliated with the project can contribute to improving the article, I'm inclined to stay with weak delete. Sorry. --Alan Au 18:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was first made aware about the Majestic-12 project after reading the article in the Norwegian Digi [34]. I personally think this is an good idea, already doing quite well(?). Hopefully the article herein will get a lot better. nsaa @ 2006-05-07 21:40Z
  • Comment Just to make sure that I'm not misunderstood... I'm not affiliated with the MJ12 project. I just run the software and report bugs and such. So, I'm just a user. Take that for what you wish. BarkerJr 22:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to no vote; I recommend re-nominating to get more input from other editors. --Alan Au 06:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I followed the link to this article from the list of search engines. I had not known about Mj12 before today. I may never have discovered this page without wikipedia and cannot understand why this article deserves deletion because of it's "un-notable-ness". Fair enough if this article was false it would deserve deletion, but notability is a hugely subjective concept, the GDP of Botswana is not notable for me in any way but someone out there needs to know it. Concentrate on clearing out the factual errors, mis-spellings, puctuation and grammar mistakes plaguing wikipedia before worrying about how important a topic is. My friends and I use wikipedia for information on things ranging from chocolate bars to the Carolingian empire. All things great and small, it's what wikipedia is USED for.

So remember folks, if you happen to find a rare new bird or insect and want to tell the world about it then don't post it on Wikipedia... they'll only go delete it for being non-notable. Sorry for the rant, but hey someone's got to tell it as it is. --User:Evil-Dragon

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

The result of the debate was speedy deletion as per A7. Elf-friend 10:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph_Steinberg[edit]

Person is not noteable. If we had every author of every obscure book then Wikipedia would have no room. The page is clearly autobiographical


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and redirect to Second Taiwan Strait Crisis Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quemoy Cleavers[edit]

Doesn't really make much sense and WP:NN (only 150 g-hits, mostly unrelated) — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Redirect - an article can be redirected/merged without nominating here.. --Hetar 06:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Zematis[edit]

Last name is mispelled. Information from this entry has been merged with the correctly-spelled entry, Alan Zemaitis. —Xanderer 23:10, 4 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. AndyZ 21:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saor Alba[edit]

Saor Alba is two men and a dog - actually no dog. Two people hold all the official positions. NOT NOTABLE!!! MacRusgail 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not on their website, but I have read their printed literature, and can confirm it from there. --MacRusgail 02:17, 5 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 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India Kerala PINCode Index1of3[edit]

Seemingly a list of geographical codes, no context Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 23:36, 4 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 by request of creator. Just zis Guy you know? 10:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cropscraper[edit]

Delete - so very original research. No google hits. There should really be a speedy for stuff like this... Prod removed without explanation of course, as always. Wickethewok 20:38, 4 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.
More