< May 4 May 6 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

May 5[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 DS 00:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark C. Davis[edit]

No Notability Adfsfdasdfdsfads 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer and social issues[edit]

Original research, fancruft masquerading as an academic essay. Brian G. Crawford 00:13, 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The result of the debate was keep per little/no consensus and nomination withdrawn. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjit Lal Jetley[edit]

Delete. Prod was "awfully praiseful article about NN person, partially edited by subject.". Deprodded with "seems to have been written about in newspapers". Well, if that were our metric here, God save us... Lots of contents, little sense. Undersignificant individual. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Crazy Russian, could you edit your above comment Deprodded with "seems to have been written about in newspapers" as it's not true (newspapers unrelated to deprodding) and seems to have confused Andrew Lenahan, below. Cheers, JackyR 22:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Kappa's note here [1].
Apologies, I missed that. JackyR 17:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, by now it's pretty obvious that RLJ is not simply an officer in the Indian army, but is a very prominent one. Don't judge me too harshly, though, as some have begun to do, because the article as it was when prodded sounded like terrible vanity, was edited by Jetley himself (!) and did not explain how very distinguished he was. I still don't understand how, by the way, but I understand that he is, and that's enough. Nomination withdrawn. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, Jetley was mentioned in Dhillon's obituary. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 10:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I guess I misunderstood "Lt. Gen Joginder Singh Dhillon != Ranjit Lal Jetley". Change from no vote to Keep Jcuk 21:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Exclamation mark is a negation symbol. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At that point of time India being a Non-aligned country but with good relations (later defence treaty) with the Soviets and dirt poor, socialist economy, innovation of putting the gun unaided by British scientists who had done it before was notable - reinventing the wheel, so to say.AshLin 17:18, 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 Keep. Consensus to keep already exists (I count 16-to-6 against deletion), and as per precedent of several other similar AfDs recently. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X102 Duel Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TS-MA4F Exass, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam[edit]

No assertion of notability outside the Gundam cartoon and toy franchise, extremely obsessive level of detail about a cartoon world. Brian G. Crawford 01:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was your tongue in cheek here? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea who Brian is, I'm basing my comment on the number of similar occasions the same thing has been tried before. Vizjim 12:03, 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 A7. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microcosm of a Teen World[edit]

Delete. Not notable, seems to be vanity page. -- Irixman (t) (m) 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable, see the reasoning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ABusa (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Delete A7. There's not even any assertion of notability. Just some kids who think this is blog space. Fan1967 02:11, 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) 13:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensual Sound[edit]

Delete - Non-notable musical group that fails to meet WP:BAND. Prod notice removed without comment. Gwernol 01:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Thanks! I believe it is notable. It: 1) went to Austria during spring break and performed there, 2) has produced an album and will produce another at the end of the month, 3) has done well in a national competition, and 4) had a member (Ethan Heard) who is currently in a notable group, The Whiffenpoofs Lorboy 00:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)"

Lorboy 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lorboy: I believe Gwernol meant that in your edit summary, you didn't mention that you had a comment on the talk page.
  • Gwernol: Did you check the talk page? If you did, maybe Lorboy was too slow between removing prod and adding a comment.
    • I had checked the talk page, but missed the update for the prod removal. Bad timing I think, sorry about that. Gwernol 02:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you are wrong here. The Whiffenpoofs is not a band with a settled line-up, it is a university choral society with a history going back nearly 100 years. It's a bit like saying that every single person who ever performed with the BBC Singers or the Huddersfield Choral Society is inherently notable, and by extension every single musical enterprise in which they subsequently participate is also notable. Another analogy: the Cambridge Footlights is notable for certain sure, and many of its former members are notable, but being a former member of the Footlights does not make for notability - look at the list of past members and you get an average of around one or two a year who become famous, which is an incredibly high hit rate for a university club but still way below 100%. How many genuinely famous former Whiffenpoofs are there? The article lists one: Cole Porter. Just zis Guy you know? 15:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From what I see, this article must be ruled per WP:MUSIC guidelines, and the band does not meet any of the exceptions there. Thus, the article should be deleted. However, a section of the article (or a shortened version of this article) could be included in a notable article that is not going to be deleted. Thus, even if you delete the repertoire and the alumni, the fact that the band is not notable according to Wikipedia still exists, and the article would be deleted (always if people consider, as me, that it is failing WP:MUSIC. What some suggest is that you merge the information from this article in another. Basically, the lead paragraph, plus mention to the notable performances would become a section of the Sidwell Friends School, probably named Consensual Sound. There is no need to include past or present repertoire. As for past and current members, I wouldn't include the names or may appear vanity. Note that, while there are only a couple of editors that worked in the Consensual Sound article, there have been well over a dozen in Sidwell Friends School. This is my "friendly" solution where the AFD is related to a notable one, but does not hold notability by itself. By putting this information into the notable article, the people who edits that article can decide whether the band (in this case, Consensual Sound) is notable enough to be part of the school article. If the people who usually edit the school believes Consensual Sound isn't notable enough, the information will be deleted (thus disappearing completely from Wikipedia). However, there is a chance that they may consider this information to be important, thus letting at least part of the deleted article be kept in another article. Hope that makes everything clear. -- ReyBrujo 04:05, 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 00:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile democracy[edit]

Original indeed. I had not gone thru the seemingly immense policies for Wiki entries seeing that I thought that this community would be far more open to original ideas and would want them to be public instead of unanimously slammed...looks like the beginning stages of an internet bureaucracy is at hand :) Thanx for your diligent efforts to supply the web with content that is not original :) no hard feelings...however I would suggest that you proposa edits at 1st and not dive into ERASE! ERASE! this does not fit into conformity! Please consider this reasonable request for policy change.

Is there a section in Wikipedia as to changes or considerations to policies? My email is reconfigure[at]gmail.com

This appears to be an original paper and is certainly not an encyclopedic entry in its current state Kyle J Moore 01:21, 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 00:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something Positive Dance Company[edit]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Almalbis[edit]

nn performer of nn band; prod tag removed by author Robocoder 01:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:MUSIC is a guideline. The number Google search results isn't one of the criteria. If it were, then the number of inbound links to her official web site would equally mean something. Following the Google News links, only two lead to the article -- the others are 404 or not found. Nomination != Award. Allmusic and Discog don't list her singles compilation or album, Parade, and Google doesn't turn up anything on the number of copies sold.[4] -- Robocoder 14:57, 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 merge and redirect to The Mummy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of amun-ra[edit]

should probably be Merged into The Mummy or The Mummy Returns. Or at least, it needs to be Moved to Book of Amun-Ra. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:38, 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 Deleted by Jpgordon as (A7). -- JLaTondre 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Russell[edit]

Vanity Nv8200p talk 01:39, 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 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Cosmetics[edit]

WP:NOT your personal ad space. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haha the page says see link below, but the link there is for "Pages for Deletion". LOL!!! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this page should be deleted. It is highly informative and essential to the topic of interest. There is no other page on Wikipedia regarding Natural Cosmetics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeyantz (talk • contribs)

True, but the problem is that Natural Cosmetics is not a topic of interest. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:26, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AP Psychology[edit]

Description of someone's high school class. Almost certainly a copyright violation out of a course guide; absolutely non-notable even if it's not. Keep in mind, this article isn't about the AP test itself, just someone's class. -Elmer Clark 02:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's certainly safe to say that the course, although it covers pretty much the same material everywhere, is not taught always identically - certainly not with those same units always in "Semester B." Even if it were, what would be the point? An article on the AP Psychology test would make much more sense than this. -Elmer Clark 05:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not standardized internationally. Not all countries have a college system, and most countries have no AP system. In fact, I was completely clueless as to what "AP Psychology exam" in the article might refer to until I saw JzG's contribution below. --LambiamTalk 11:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • change to keep since it is now a completely different article about a different subject, namely the exam (standardised) instead of the course (not). Just zis Guy you know? 22:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a quick stab at revising the article to make it more encyclopedic (removed random reference to "semester b", etc.,) and I stubified. Take a look, but it still needs work. —Jnk 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends how you view it. The subject of the original article - a non-standardised course for a program which already had an article - was unencyclopaedic. The rewritten article, about the (standardised) exam, is encyclopaedic. But to recognise that the article was salvageable by refactoring it to a different, albeit related, subject, did require lateral thinking, and it seems harsh to castigate the nominator for failing to make that leap. Enough people voted delete before the rewrite to indicate that it is certainly not as unambiguous as you make out. Just zis Guy you know? 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would likewise encourage you to read the version of the article I submitted for deletion before lambasting me. The original article had absolutely nothing to do with the AP test itself. I assumed that any article about the actual test would be located at AP Psychology exam or something. Chill out. -Elmer Clark 06:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, and could have written a 2 paragraph stub on the exam in the time it took you to list this for AFD.  ALKIVAR™ 17:19, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Catches a Pokémon[edit]

Well, it's happening. The expansion of Pokemon-related articles (familiar to many on AfD as a core citation for why we could keep just about anything) is moving to yet lower ground with synopses for various episodes. Delete as yet more Pokemon-cruft. (Prodded but contested). Eusebeus 02:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article itself states that this is the 3rd episode. Shiroi Hane 09:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good luck on that Crusade.. your going to have episdoe pages miles in length for a series like dr who, or even the star treks.. EnsRedShirt 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited some stuff. Matty-chan 21:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Published ≠ printed; there's absolutely no reason why the series itself (in video form) can't be cited as a source here, since it has been (quite widely) published. (The fact that the article doesn't cite it is regrettable, but presumably easily fixed.) Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that, for basic, non-controversial information about TV shows (cast, crew, basic plot, airdates, etc), the show itself can be considered to be a source. Even if not, as has already been mentioned there are any number of online episode guides, such as serebii.net. Even if print sources are insisted upon, there are plenty of those, too. Episode information can be found in the now-defunct Pokemon Official Magazine, as well as actual books like Pojo's Unofficial Total Pokemon (ISBN 1572436794), Pojo's Unofficial Big Book of Pokemon (ISBN 1572433612), and several others. There's also plenty of Pokemon anime coverage in the major anime magazines as well, such as Anime Insider, Animerica, and NewType. Say what you will about the article, but verifiability is not not not not not an issue here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap.
I agree with this one completely. -User:Jimbo Wales"[8]
~Kylu (u|t) 04:15, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine and Melanie Silver[edit]

Twins? yes. Notable? No. The article summarizes the highlights and entirety of their brief film career - Pebbles in the movie version (shudder) of The Flintstones and a brief stint on General Hospital. Delete Eusebeus 02:20, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look What I Did[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 02:38, 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. DS 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp gx30[edit]

Delete Non-notable. Reads like a product review. Jnk 02:39, 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. Good work, people. DS 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore L. Thomas[edit]

not wikified, doesnt assert importance, been tagged ((expand)) for a month, nn short story writer Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a pulp writer from well before the advent of the Internet? Sure. Vizjim 11:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only the novels were ever sold as such, and overall sales figures were generally pretty low for SF in that era. All the short stories were printed in magazines. F&SF and Astounding (now called Analog), which published most of his work, were and are among the absolute top magazines in the genre. Fan1967 17:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rewritten it and someone else has started adding content. Vizjim 13:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to hear! It's nice to see an AfD that ends up constructively rewriting! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 16:17, 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 speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declined[edit]

De-prodded without explanation by anonymous editor. Hoax. Zero google hits for "Shaun Tenni" +Declined or "Chris Weinlich" +Declined or "Alvaro Mascaro" +Declined or "Kosta Stefano" +Declined. Icarus 02:44, 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 speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Weinlich[edit]

De-prodded without explanation by anonymous editor. Vanity, hoax. Zero google hits for "Chris Weinlich" +Declined Icarus 02:46, 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. Royboycrashfan 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3030[edit]

De-prodded without explanation by anonymous editor. Non-notable. 0 google hits for "Dwight Henry" "Sean Terry" Icarus 02:47, 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 A7/A8. Royboycrashfan 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOCMAN[edit]

Delete non-notable, reads like an ad. Jnk 02:56, 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 no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary Warrior[edit]

Doesn't seem encyclopedia material to me. Second half of the article is a copyvio. Also, doesn't appear to be Wiktionary worthy (not a dicdef), but I'm leaving the dicdef template there anyways. Suggest either rewrite or delete. TheProject 03:00, 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 A7. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty In A Basket[edit]

Contested PROD that does not meet WP:MUSIC. Joyous | Talk 03:14, 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. Kimchi.sg 12:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Phase[edit]

Delete non-notable web forum(s) with no claim to notability asserted. Prod was removed. Gwernol 03:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-Wolf[edit]

Non-notable musician per WP:BAND. Was originally tagged for speedy deletion, negligently deleted by the author, retagged by me--then I did a Google query and found that his music is sorta, kinda approaching the mainstream--thought it better to AfD. One of his albums, 'Miseries Company is listed on Amazon, though the item is not in stock and does not have a sales ranking. His other album is not to be found anywhere. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Aaron Proot:

His album is on CD-Baby, which means it is on iTunes and the other download services. He was also on a UPN reality series earlier this year, whose name escapes me at the moment. While he is not a mainstream artist, he is popular enough to be included on Wikipedia. Think of what I started as a stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaronproot (talk • contribs) .

Please read over WP:BAND. Having an album available for download, even via iTunes, does not constitute notability on Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of indie and no-name artists on Wikipedia. Your quick tagging of my article before I had a chance to finish it is deeply irritating and a waste of your time. I do plan on fleshing out this article, unless you manage to have it deleted first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaronproot (talk • contribs) .

Please do add to the article right now before it is deleted. You may just convince us against its removal. Kimchi.sg 12:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO KEEP. FYI the information provided is very incorrect. A.wolf aka Anthony Cozzo was born January 30 1979. And avatar wolf? What the heck is that? LOL someone must have gotten that from a wise crack he made on one of his myspace profiles. Get correct information. You might want to try googling "Nitrous Ox" Pokerface, try VH1 toilet theories, youtube battles against misah Fab as well as locksmith from frontline. Im not not bashing anyone, but you obviously dont do your homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.231.122 (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. Brendan Ryan[edit]

I think this person does not fill Wikipedia's criteria for notability and thus should be deleted. Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies Awiseman 16:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I don't think Wikipedia is the right resource. Awiseman 04:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please point us where in WP:BIO it is stated that being the CEO of a company makes you notable enough for Wikipedia. I haven't found that section anywhere, but since I kind of think he must have done something right in order to be the CEO of a company, I am abstaining myself from voting. -- ReyBrujo 02:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We more or less automatically, by longstanding consensus, accept inclusion of anyone working in a significant enough position in certain businesses, such as professional football (either kind), baseball or cricket (where it is enough to be hired to sit on a bench for most of a couple of seasons). Isn't it just systemic bias not to include a prominent, and very likely influential, businessman just because the business he is attached to doesn't have a fan club? u p p l a n d 02:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this logic, as athletes are public figures who do their "work" in front of fans and thus are much more visible than businessmen, who generally work behind the scenes and rarely get in the news. Awiseman 04:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, many such businessmen are often in the news (that's why many papers have a daily business section in addition to a daily sports section). Anyways, that's en argument that would be relevant if this were Wikiabloid, however, it is Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 05:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO etc should be treated as inclusionary rules, not exclusionary rules. If someone holds an intrinsically important position they should get in anyway, even if they don't fall under some specific guideline. Someone like this person is asserted to be is much more important in the real world than an obscure author who has managed to get a book published with a print run of just over 5000, or even quite a lot more than that number, or any of the many other examples we could think of. Metamagician3000 11:47, 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 Speedy keep, withdrawn/nominator actually wants merge/etc. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bandit (truck)[edit]

Bandit, along with the trucks listed below, is an NN monster truck. I want to clean up the monster truck section and the first step is getting rid of some of the articles on trucks that were never notable, these vehicles will eventually be compiled into a List of monster trucks page. The other trucks being nominated:

Arenacale 04:54, 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 g4. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 05:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regular Grand Lodge of England[edit]

None of it is verified, it's full of "weasel words", and finally it was voted to be deleted previously. Wikipedia is not a) free web space b) propaganda c) original research d) an indiscriminate collection of information or a junk yard. Delete and protect Ardenn 05:25, 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 No consensus. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drawball[edit]

Blazing exciting new trails in non-notability, prod tag removed without comment, article itself is also severely lacking. Objectivist-C 05:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Second edit actually, their first edit appeared to be on May 4th.--BigCow 16:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did I do something wrong? Chigz 14:04, 8 May 2006
  • Comment Not at all, don't worry about it. In discussions like this one, which are more about "consensus" than taking a poll, people are occasionally accused of trying to stuff ballots or bring in outside help to vote on a topic. Sock puppetry is what people call it, and people sometimes list how many edits a user has to suggest a "weight" to their vote or if they just signed up to vote. You're more than welcome to participate, and you were an editor before this vote even took place, people are just wary of ballot-stuffing.--BigCow 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah, thank you. See, I'm not so much an editor as a user. I use Wikipedia daily for its information; I have done no editing up to this point (as is most obvious by my lack of knowledge on editing properly). I just felt that I should interject where an article that I make use of is being questioned for deletion. Thanks again, though, for clearing that up. Chigz 20:50, 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. Metamagician3000 08:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sevenoaks S.C.[edit]

This article makes some assertion of notability of finishing sixth in the regional championships, but I checked its website to look at the times the swimmers were doing, and the record holder is about 20-25% slower than the world record in all events. Given that the qualifying limit for olympics and world championships is 5%, this cannot possibly come close to being sportingly notable. Britain won 2 bronze medals at the last Olympics in swimming, and isn't particularly strong, so I don't see why a community club competing in a county league at speeds 25% lower than international standard is notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 17:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beckenham Swimming Club[edit]

A suburban swim club. Despite the claims made in the article, I checked the "club records" section in the website and all of the club records are 10-15% slower than the world record, whereas the qualifying at the Olympics requires around a 5% margin for A-qualifying. There is no indication of them winning British Championships, or any athletes being selected for national teams, and incidentally, Britain managed only 2 bronze medals in the last Olympics and aren't exactly a swimming power.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 17:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erith and District S.C.[edit]

I checked the homepage for this club and their club records are 15% slower than the world record. You need 5% to make to qualifying limit for the Olympics. Also, the fact that the club has 300 people is not paricularly enough for inclusion on grounds of size alone, and training 6 days a week isn't exactly notable either.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron_Skull[edit]

Google finds only minor references to Iron Skull as a comic character, but they don't fit this synopsis. Looks like the OP is wikifying his own inventions. Eric TF Bat 06:46, 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 - Liberatore(T) 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Murphy[edit]

Person does not meet notability requirements
↪Lakes (Talk) 06:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.103.143.97 (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. -Doc ask? 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Soultan[edit]

NN bio. Only 2 (non-related) Google hits for his name besides Wikipedia. Vanity? Optimale Gu 08:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keresztes' other two en.wiki articles are: Jozsef Koves and István Fekete, the latter of whom has a well-established hu.wiki article. JackyR 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And a third one about Vera Filo. Tamas Keresztes 16:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've looked into Hungarian references to Szultán Alfréd. I am convinced that he is not a hoax; however, I am not at all convinced that he meets our criteria for notability. I will abstain on this one. --Ashenai 09:11, 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 speedy keep. The nomination was clearly disruption of Wikipedia to make a point on the mailing list. The point is adequately made, and this article has no chance of actually being deleted. Let's end this absurdity. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Keep, per consensus. I count at this point 31 keep/strong keep/speedy keep vs either 1 or 2 to delete , or a 94-97%. Further debate would be thoroughly pointless, though I suppose techinically it could go to DRV if anyone really feels differently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that 0.999... equals 1[edit]

Completely unencyclopedic. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of facts, which also means that it is not a repository for proofs of arbitrary nuggets of mathematical fact. This is an obvious deletion candidate to even an inclusionist like me, at best it can be transwikied to WikiBooks if they want it. Loom91 08:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least ten other proof articles currently on Wikipedia; see Category:Proofs, List of mathematical proofs, and Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1#Title. Of these, only one has undergone AfD:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π.
A couple of people wanted to transwiki or merge, and a couple thought that such a numerical comparison was undeserving of proof, but the clear consensus was to keep. Some went out of their way to point out that the article does not violate WP:NOT, among other policies.
And that is, in fact, the only AfD on record of its kind. Searching VfD instead, we find only Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Proof that 1 = 2, which was not a proof at all, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Proof that 0.999... equals 1, which never happened.
As for the merits of this particular article and its subject, I endorse the above keep votes. Melchoir 10:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is posible that User:Loom91 really does want this article deleted.Geni 15:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also possible that the sun might rise shortly after I have my supper this evening, but I won't be holding my breath: given that this AfD was raised shortly after you yourself mentioned that very article the connection is reasonably clear. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the standard arguments that turn up on a lot of forums along with things such as the Monty Hall problem.Geni 16:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be fantastic to know in the article for context about this proof and why it has any relevance or importance (and I know I'm preaching to the choir based on your comments above).--Isotope23 16:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is finding a source. I can show you multipage threads[14] but they are not really a valid source.Geni 16:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ironicaly thr closest I can get to solid source is an april fools joke[15].Geni 16:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for reputable, published literature on common misconceptions over 0.999..., there is at least one author who's written on the subject. See Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1/Archive02#If I may speak to the article itself... and this journal article. Melchoir 19:37, 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 revert. AndyZ 00:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger_tank[edit]

More detailed articles for all three Challenger Tanks already exist Hrimfaxi 09:05, 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 Merge and Redirect to Klingon language. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'Armond Speers[edit]

A stub on a recent PhD best known for attempting (and failing) to raise his child in Klingon. Falls somewhere in the nether-regions between "extreme non-notability" and "ludicrous non-notability". Raggaga 09:52, 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 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Styles[edit]

The only Ace Styles wrestler I can find on google[17] is on a page titled "Flipsyde's Fantasy Wrestler Pack". Seems to be a fictional wrestler or very non-notable. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 09:58, 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 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overplay[edit]

PROD tag once removed, so bringing it here. Article on a website that gives no indication of meeting the criteria at WP:WEB. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:40, 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) 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Axelrod[edit]

Not notable enough, self-promotion, Delete abakharev 11:08, 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 speedy delete. Chick Bowen 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Walker (student)[edit]

Non Notable entry. Vanity. Possible case for speedy. Irishpunktom\talk 11:59, 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 as copyvio and redirect. Chick Bowen 19:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tejo Mahalaya[edit]

plus redirects

Tagged for deletion by Nkv (talk • contribs), completing nomination Dr Zak 12:29, 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 Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn with no other delete votes. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Relations Institute of Cameroon[edit]

DELETE/VERIFY: It looks like a hoax, contains unserious formulation. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

withdrawn: because of the reply (see below), it looks the IRIC does exist.
The phone number was removed, and thus it does not look like a commercial advert anymore.
I am sorry for the effort it may have caused. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone may be unaware of its existence doesn't make it a scam. The internet is free, and can be used to verfify all informations. The author has produced and article based on public information. There is no statement of opionion in this piece of writing. Instead of pointing out what should be cleaned out, you simple mark it for deletion. Below are few links talking about the institution. the International Relations Institute of Cameroon (IRIC)exists.


http://hei.unige.ch/ped/EN/cooperation.htm

http://yaounde.usembassy.gov/april_6_2005.html


http://www.minesup.gov.cm/ang/Communiques/Concours/IRIC_2002.htm


http://www.africanfront.com/intlaffairs1.php

This isn't a good way of encouraging people to volunteer their time...

Esso 18:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote DELETE/VERIFY, not DELETE. It is not usual to include phone number. An institue should have a meaningful website. "They" wrote a lot of mail from nigeria including the word million. Western countries do not take this serious anymore. http://hei.unige.ch/ped/EN/cooperation.htm the phone number is listed there. "Other websites of interest" : It is called "External links", and only allowed for related websites (no advertising/web directory). 50 links=web directory... Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 10:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could have offered some help instead. What is wrong with the phone number being listed on a related website? Just because western institutions have websites don't make those that don't have one unserious. Besides, you might want to check and see what the HEI is. If the HEI website bothers you, if can be taken off the list. where have you seen 50 links?

G p 12:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50 links: it is a joke (i do not assume 50 links are required). All i asked for was verification (because many, many people using wikipedia for commercial advertising). This is now listed in the deletion log. I believe this page does not need to get deleted. If i can help out, no problem. I just can not remove the hoax tag without discussion Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 12:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can strike out your nomination (by enclosing it between <s> and </s>) and add something like: "Nomination withdrawn. ~~~~". --LambiamTalk 23:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked (visited) the HEI website some hours ago. The phone number is there. This site is allright. Usually, wikipedia entries do not contain phone number, email, and so on. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 12:43, 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) 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe golf[edit]

Hoax/goof/spam. Article seems to be the creation of a sports retailer (see Ext link). All of the writer's edits are to or related to this article. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I reply to this (have tried to read but can't find info! Apologies if it's wrong.

This is my first wiki, so I'm a little confused as to why you think that this being the only article I currently have linked to is a big surprise. I have removed the 2nd external link, though that was there as the point of entry for the shoe golf championship, as it seems that offended you. Please, if you can find any other info on shoe golf, other than the shoegolfassociation please link to it. I am literally just trying to publish a wiki on a game I love playing with my friends, and have linked to it from golf (as it's a variation) and also from street games...as it is one! If you watch my editing highlights over the next week or so you'll see that I'm a sensible person, and that my intention isn't to spam, nor to spoil a great resource...merely to add to it.

On a truthful note, yes I have done work for Ochosports, but as I said, they're one of the places I can find info about shoe golf, so the link IS relevant imho.

User:Chris_white_22 | Talk 14:16, 5 May 2006 (BST)

I have read up on the verifiability and there are admittedly very few sites detailing shoe golf; that said they do exist. If I were to find relevant links on shoe golf, and other sites with info, would this be a good way of trying to maintain this sports wikified status? User talk:Chris_white_22 15:16, 5 May 2006 (BST)

A suggestion-- let the deletion go through. Then, later on (probably much later) after you have a substantial number of reliable sources discussing the sport, add the article again. Encyclopedias really aren't the place for things just getting started. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mwanner - I've tried to include some relevant links from decent sources that I can find, and I see your point about new stuff and encyclopedias, but shoe golf isn't "new" it's just that (in the UK at least) it's just getting big. Globally it's been around ages...perhaps not in Florida though! -- User:chris_white_22 | 14:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, not much in terms of feelings in regard to shoegolf but I take exception at what some of you are trying to do. When did you personally decide on what an encyclopedia is or is not for! This is arrogance at a huge scale.

"Definition encyclopedia" a book or set of books containing many articles arranged in alphabetical order which deal either with the whole of human knowledge or with a particular part of it: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language"

or

encyclopedia, compendium of knowledge, either general (attempting to cover all fields) or specialized (aiming to be comprehensive in a particular field).

If someone is trying to use this resource to add credibility to a specific sport this is helping everyone and making this place a centre of knowledge not just a place where people with way too much arrogance define the word encyclopedia. Points regarding commeriality are obviously valid however it you were to look at almost any sport they start out with a couple of clever companies seeing that they can attach there name to something new, kind of like hoover attached its name to the vacuum cleaner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skelligs (talk • contribs) .


On the show golf mention in the book the wiki links to (well, the amazon details of it), in the front matter the author describes that he was an avid shoe golfer before he cared for teh real thing, and also describes the rules to shoe golf around page 60 (and those of frisbee golf too). I will grab the ISBN number, and see if I can find out how to cite a book properly! User:Chris_white_22 07:51, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tishting[edit]

Google result of FOUR Metros232 13:45, 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 as non-notable band. JDoorjam Talk 07:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Schlong[edit]

Was accused of being a NN-band, tag removed, so I'm taking it here. No vote. Bachrach44 14:00, 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 by Geogre. Stifle (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inventegration[edit]

Neologism, it has been deleted 5 times under the prod and speedy deletion processes. Needs to be discussed by a wider audience and put to bed if appropriate. Accurizer 14:46, 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 15:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Philippine entertaiment[edit]

Unencyclopedic, original research. This is more of an essay, hence violates NPOV policies. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:49, 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. Royboycrashfan 20:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Cano[edit]

non notable, perhaps vanity. less than 20 hits on google, many of which are this article. frymaster 15:34, 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 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl Who Turned to Stone[edit]

The "prod" tag was removed by an anon user [19]. Previously was listed as prod due to unsourced, likely hoax, violation of WP:NOT. Further, related editors to that page created The Girl Who Turned to Stone (video game), another dubious article that I tagged with prod just now. My reading of the WP:PROD policy revealed if "ANYONE" removes the prod tag the article must go to AfD, but perhaps if an anon removes the tag under dubious circumstances w/o noting anything at Talk this shouldn't count? Kaisershatner 16:21, 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 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Art & Destiny[edit]

Not sure if this is AFD worthy or not, I'm not a Christian music fan, but artist doesn't seem all that notable, but I'll leave that up to everyone else to decide, no vote from me Metros232 16:49, 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 Prodego talk 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the xbox 360 is better than the PS3[edit]

Obvious POV issues and will always have POV, author claims it is based on Microsoft's research Metros232 16:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We're not complaining. We're stating that this is not encyclopedic no matter who compiled this research. Metros232 17:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've bookmarked all the images. I'll tag them as orphans once this AfD's closed. Fan1967 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, duh, "hangon"... so he has now created Xbox 360 and PS3 comparinson bad and good points and placed a pre-emptive hangon template... ? · rodii ·


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 13:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Kristian[edit]

Claims of notability appear to be somewhat suspect, and even if true, doesn't seem to be notable enough. Author of article has only edited this article, which suggests vanity. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:47, 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. Royboycrashfan 20:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Club, S.Thomas College[edit]

NN club at a single college. Bachrach44 16:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and tagged per A7 for no assertion of notability. TheProject 19:00, 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 15:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMC International[edit]

Article was de-proded as more sketchy claims were added. "HMC International" hotel gets only 198 Google hits, few, if any, have something to do with hotel consulting. This reads like an advertisment. I think this should be deleted unless some decent claim of notability can be established... -- Scientizzle 17:01, 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 speedily deleted under WP:CSD A7. Snoutwood (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Cubs[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about an amateur softball team. A Google search turns up information on volleyball and pool (billiards) groups, but nothing related to softball. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the article's claims. --Allen3 talk 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, but what about your softball team makes it notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia?. Wikipedia is not, among other things, a web hosting service. (see WP:NOT). -- MarcoTolo 18:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instances of sport in Britain are mainly based around the core elite of popular sports - football (thats soccer to Americans), rugby, tennis, cricket, golf and snooker. Walk into any sports shop in the UK and you are hard pressed to avoid racks full of football shirts, golf clubs and cricket bats. Recognition for minority sports is scarce - even the nations broadcaster, the BBC, only features them sporadically in small segments on Sunday afternoons and during large sporting events.
Popularity of baseball and softball may be small but it is sizable as evidenced by the efforts of BaseballSoftballUK to reinstate baseball and softball into the 2012 London Olympics. Any online resource - such as Wikipedia which is well known and respected - should be able to encompass one minor article detailing the efforts made by a group - no matter how small - to publicise minority sports.
Softball is different to many sports in that it is mixed-gender. Due to the segregation imposed by many sporting bodies - including the one where male and female footballers/soccer players are segregated by age regardless of ability - it is hard to find any other sport where gender is presented as an irrelevancy.
Encylcopedias are not just collections of information, they are charters of history. Previous incarnations of the CSA have failed due to lack of publicity and interest. If this one succeeds then Wikipedia will have had an article detailing it from its inception.
I hope my argument is valid. I would not want to violate any rules intentionally. I believe this article should remain. At present it is a stub, to be expanded upon when more details, profiles, results and other miscellanea are readily available. I beg users' indulgence in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocyoung (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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix (IT)[edit]

Possible hoax, no verifiable sources presented. Initially proposed for deletion. BigE1977 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

have you tried "software matrix"? Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see hoax vs language usage (Constructed_language, see dictionary. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)~[reply]
You have never seen the term. That's not a scientific proof. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I did a google search, but as my results were the same as already mentioned, I didn't mention it. I even googled "software matrix" but got either false positives or pages using the term to refer to webpage table layouts. Jamoche 19:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is nothing personal, but how many programmers do you know? (you suggest that you know programmers). I know of a website using the term for software products. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 10:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please point us to the page to see the context in which it is being used. -- ReyBrujo 13:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, I'd probably say a half dozen outside various OSS projects. Typically my programming friends work on sourceforge-based OSS projects. I'm afraid I tend to shy away from "big company" (IBM, Microsoft) projects on there (Yes, MS has stuff on sf) so that could be a reason I don't run into the term. My personal programming experience and number of programmers I know is, in this case, somewhat irrelevant to the primary problem of this article, in that it appears (to me) to be more a dictdef than encyclopedic content, and should be deleted and transferred to Wiktionary so they can debate its merits. Hope that answers your question. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
www.mathtutor.com/matrix.html Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same usage as described in the Matrix (IT) article or the IBM page that it originally referred to. The article refers to a group of binaries which form a software application. The DLL tree of Windows Operating System, also the various versions of Windows itself, are a "software matrix". i.e. a Software package, the matrix you point out is a Matrix (graph) listing educational software and appropriate grade levels for said software. Your matrix is a human-read selector for determining which software to use, which by definition the article's matrix is computer-read. If you'd like to, please consider writing Matrix (graph) which has of yet has no article or link on the disambiguation page (q.v. "table" in math or graphics). If we made a seperate entry for each of the various types of Matrix (graph) possible, it would have to have its own wikipedia. 207.145.133.34 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A math matrix? The article isn't talking about a int matrix[64][64]; matrix, it is closer to the definition of a dependency tree instead. -- ReyBrujo 13:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Math matrix'es are not obvious to anyone, i believe software matrix resembles that module's of a software package play together "compareable to a (math) matrix". It looks a valid usage of language to me - not neccessarily a wikipedia article. Probably one from IBM/Microsoft could give a statement...
the sentence ReyBrujo referd to was "software matrix = similar to math matrix" Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 11:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stubs and dicdefs are deleted all the time, would you mind explaining how this one would be construed as censorship please? I'm afraid I don't see it. Censorship is described as the removal of information that is harmful to the censoring body... this isn't harmful to Wikipedia, it's just at best in the wrong place. If it's contentious, then perhaps a redirect to a more commonly-named article (Software package perhaps?) 207.145.133.34 15:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting content which is not understood, or just disliked: this is malicious censorship. If it is not encyclopedic, then it is not censorship. If it is OR, then it is not censorship. I never mentioned censorship for this Afd. It is possible to list these meanings in the disambiguation page (as single line). Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is, imho, constructive discrimination to remove a term which as far as I can tell:
  1. Is not a widely used industry term. It is minority at best.
  2. Is written as a dictionary definiton, not an encyclopedic article (thus should be transwiki'd).
  3. Is understood and not disliked. I doubt it'd be difficult to contact more programmer wikipedians and get expert opinions on the article if you'd like, though it's still dicdef.
  4. As far as your not mentioning censorship, I'm afraid I have to disagree on this point also. Please look up at the only Weak Keep vote (or only Keep vote at all for that matter) where you mention censorship in that line.
  5. The article does not cite any sources which refer to it in the manner that it was written. The original citation seemed to be a misunderstanding of the term as used, and the matrix that you note above is not anywhere near the same concept.
I'm rather curious as to why you're fighting so hard to keep a dictionary definition in the encyclopedia? Akidd, you're still the only one with a keep vote on the matter and these back-and-forth comments seem to be what's holding up the process. If possible, please reply on my talk page. I'm not sure it's really appropriate to continue debating the same points in this space. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's jargon. I've heard of it, but it's not really worth an article. See WP:MOS DEF. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 02:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The definition presented failes WP:V — an entirely different definition is supported by the reference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 under A7. Snoutwood (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rizzo[edit]

This article is for a local TV persona. He has his own sports show that only airs locally, and has his own radio show, which also only airs locally. His only other claim to faim is being a webmaster for http://www.rizzosports.com/ (Alexa rank 3,125,437). --Hetar 17:41, 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 21:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnoburb[edit]

What do you think, people? Delete due to neologism, or move to Wiktionary? IceCreamAntisocial 17:48, 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 by Snoutwood as CSD A7 - non-notable biography / vanity. --Hetar 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st bletchley scout group[edit]

NN scout group in a single location. Author has removed prod (and other information) w/o explanation. Bachrach44 18:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kraus Scale[edit]

Either non-notable or a hoax; the article is very unclear to what it refers and I could only find mirrors on a Google search. There has been a suggestion to clarify on the Talk Page for nearly a year without a change. It was first written on April Fool's Day by an anonymous user. Rigadoun 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the article, it seems like it's describing a whole-tone scale. I've never heard it referred to as a "Kraus scale". Google brought one result[20] that refers to Kraus scales, but doesn't explain what they are. However, it seems they exist. For the time being, however, until we can get more information, delete per nom. TheProject 18:46, 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 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coldspot[edit]

stub removed by author; fabricated/coined term without citation; Google shows overwhelming use associated with a model of refrigerator (trademarked), followed by paranormal activity (i.e., ghosts); at minimum, the article would need to be renamed to "Coldspot (wifi)" to match "Hotspot (wifi)", and cleaned up. Better yet, write an article for "dead spots" (commonly used in wireless voice/data communications). Robocoder 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I knew there was a reason why I managed to skip over this one in my transwikification quest. Delete per nom. TheProject 18:36, 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. Chick Bowen 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin[edit]

Nonsense Happynoodleboy 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and tagged per A3. TheProject 18:49, 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 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business research[edit]

Business research is a generic and useless term. It's "four" components already have their own articles. This "Business research" label adds no new information. At best, it's a trivial category, but it doesn't rate an article. Rklawton 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not against the company, mind you. I just don't like when the founder of the company creates an article about both his company, its tasks and the co-founder. -- ReyBrujo 20:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you do the honors of nominating FreshMinds - it's your find. I'll second it. Rklawton 20:14, 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. Mo0[talk] 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snowballing (sexual practice)[edit]

Dicdef plus original research. A mention on the disabiguation page Snowballing is good enough. Brian G. Crawford 19:32, 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 close, improper nomination of a redirect on AFD. Stifle (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pooma lift[edit]

mispelling of Poma lift. Google gives zero hits of "pooma lift" (other than this article). EncMstr 19:53, 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. Mo0[talk] 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity Magazine[edit]

This is a non-notable cruft magazine created by someone whose only edits are on this page and the Young Republicans page. Possibly speedy? Anthony Hit me up... 20:02, 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. Mo0[talk] 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Saladino[edit]

No reason given for notability. Google is no help. External link is inaccessible. Crystallina 20:03, 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 keep. Metamagician3000 11:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Phoenix (singer)[edit]

Delete. Non-notable singer in the group the King's Singers. Does not deserve his own page. Reads like vanity as well... ConDemTalk 20:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Broadcasting Guide", Television, edited by Peter Davalle, The Times, Saturday, Nov 24, 1979; pg. 11; Issue 60483; col C
  2. ^ "Christmas Day, Television", The Times, Monday, Dec 24, 1979; pg. 18; Issue 60508; col C
  3. ^ The Times, Wednesday, May 29, 1985; pg. 3; Issue 62150; col A.
The inaccuracies I mentioned relate to Mr Phoenix's solo career - anyone who has heard or referred to the score of the "Tinker Tailor..." theme will know that it is for solo treble, with no choir parts anywhere to be seen. His career as a treble was solely based on his own talent and personality, which paved the way for the later fame of Aled Jones and Anthony Way as boy trebles.
Anyone who is seeking to know more about treble singing and early successful trebles, as well as the personalities within the King's Singers - the world's first "close harmony" group (they invented the term) and still the best, most highly sought-after and longest-surviving male voice ensemble ever to exist, will find entries both on the group in general AND on individuals within that group informative, interesting and revealing. Simply taking it upon yourself to attempt deletion of anyone who you deem "unworthy" despite clear evidence to the contrary is, I would say, a little disappointing. Apart from anything else, the educational benefit of these entries to the countless students in the UK and USA in particular who study King's Singers material (they publish most of their arrangements and sell tens of thousands of scores each year) and wish to find out more about the group, is extremely worthy.
Before it is mentioned, I also am a new editing member of Wikipedia, but the fact that I use it frequently and wanted informaton on the King's Singers and their members today, shows that this information is appreciated by those of us with slightly fewer chips on their shoulder. I haven't found the need to comment before, but in this instance it seems important. --82.68.78.198 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Montiolivetti[reply]
I'd just like to make it clear that there is no "personal vendetta" involved, and I have not come across Paul Phoenix outside of Wikipedia. ConDemTalk 13:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a minute I'm going to close this as keep. However, I just want to emphasise for newcomers to the process that any suggestion of bad faith is unjustified and out of line. This AfD process is an important aspect of quality control for Wikipedia, and the nominator acted properly bringing the issue here to get the wisdom of other users. Metamagician3000 11:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with consensus of keep. TheProject 21:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Twining[edit]

Vanity from editor whose only activity has been linkspamming article after article (Sixteen on a quick count).

Now cleaned up as requested. Concensus seems to be adequately notable despite this being a vanity article from an editor whom we hope will contribute more widely to Wikipedia. Withdrawing AfD nomination. Dlyons493 Talk 08:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, hope to see this expanded. Deizio talk 09:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He may be adequately notable - I'm not really sure, which is why I brought it to AfD. "The Double Eagle" gets about 300 Ghits and has Amazon.com Sales Rank: #151,831 in Books, Yesterday: #317,015 in Books. Not wildly impressive and the need to spam Wikipedia makes it less likely he is genuinely notable. Dlyons493 Talk
Link above shows a decent rank of #26,870 for amazon.co.uk, he's British after all. Deizio talk 22:08, 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 no consensus. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Shaffir[edit]

Delete. This seems to be another attempt to get Amazing Racist information in. Note that the Amazing Racist AfD discussion referred to this comedian as non-notable, which nobody contested at the time. This AfD result was endorsed by Deletion Review, so process has already determined this comedian is not notable.

Even if previous process is to be ignored, the subject does not live up to the requirements for living actors under WP:BIO, and fails many proposed tests (Google, professor, 100 years). The small IMDB entry and few Google hits for "Ari Shaffir" back up the previous determination of the subject's non-notability. Vslashg (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: First edit from this IP, and misrepresents Google results -- only 350 or so returned out of 145 unique. [23] Vslashg (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - why even list the professor test? It is like you're just listing out policies which aren't applicable. Also I agree the article needs a POV cleanup. Its defense of the videos is totally POV. Google metrics are bogus are not worth even arguing over, but the original poster misrepresents the results of the google search. Also I don't think referring to the previous process is really fair or accurate. If you read that AfD it is just wikipedia policy quoting, there was no real discussion and it is possible people didn't even know that article existed. So the only people voting might be those who hover around the delete page. Essentially I've shown this person to be reasonably notable and shown many of the metrics used to claim his article should be deleted to be inaccurate, misreprsented or bogus. --TrollHistorian 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Morin[edit]

This article seems to not agree with WP:BIO. The article seems to be put together as well as is likely possible. I believe that the subject is simply not notable. JGGardiner 20:27, 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 under A7. Snoutwood (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sail training foundation[edit]

for WP:CORP Ioannes Pragensis 20:28, 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 (would be CSD A7 anyways). Tawker 09:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squareroot Records[edit]

"Young and jovial" non-notable record label with a small roster of non-notable bands. Google has 19 unique hits to mirrors and freespace. Deizio talk 21:13, 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 per CSD:A3, only contents are a repeat of the title. Stifle (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother UK series 8[edit]

Non-commisionned show.-- 9cds(talk) 21:36, 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. Tawker 09:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raciolesbianism[edit]

Recognizing the intersection of multiple forms of discrimination and oppression is certainly important, but this is a new, not-yet-accepted term. FreplySpang (talk) 21:50, 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 DELETE. -Doc ask? 17:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont Braineaters[edit]

Delete. Non-notable sports team. Article was prod'ed but notice was removed with nothing of importance added. Only 31 Ghits. discospinster 23:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not unsurprisingly, the above IP resolves to Claremont Colleges. Fan1967 01:30, 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. Tawker 09:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Song[edit]

Impossibly large list that is already a category (Category:Songs). Also improperly pluralized and capitalized. MakeRocketGoNow 23:07, 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. Tawker 09:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Singer[edit]

Impossibly large list that is already handled better by categories. Also improperly pluralized and capitalized. MakeRocketGoNow 23:14, 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 Merge and Redirect to Gnomeo and Juliet. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 12:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomeo and Juliet (2006 film)[edit]

There is another article Gnomeo and Juliet which is better developed and more encyclopaedic Slp1 23:25, 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. Royboycrashfan 15:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

54C[edit]

There's not much less notable than a city bus line. Why does this belong in an encyclopedia? A clear violation of WP:NOT. -- Scientizzle 23:52, 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Breed[edit]

  • Comment The IMDB article says it's a 2006 film, but the entry hasn't been update since June, 2005. If production had taken place and a release was planned, wouldn't there be some update there? IMDB has a bad record on reporting projected movies that never happen. Fan1967 01:41, 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. Tawker 09:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan Smolthynor[edit]

Completing orphaned AfD, nominated by anon IP, unable to complete. Apparently Star Wars "Expanded Universe (fanfic?) character. Also nominated for Speedy G1. Fan1967 02:27, 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.
More