< May 8 May 10 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

May 9[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PTC Gz[edit]

-I have proof they are reall, im a former student at MHS and they put out 2 CDS I have a link from our talent show way back in the day with a clip of them doing a song. It isnt that good as far as video quality cause we were young high school students running the production but here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glkxGZDoN4g look at it and cry people. It isn't verifiably notable. You can't even prove they exist. Urthogie 16:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is currently involved with me in an edit war.--Urthogie 18:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that they ever made those LP's? No, so its not verifiable.--Urthogie 18:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AfD is premature and should have been preceded by a Verify tag to give editors, who are probably not familiar with all the Wiki procedures, a chance to provide substantiation. Had this been done and nothing more was forthcoming, I would support the nom. I am conscious of BITE. Nor have any of the editors been notified on their talk pages of this AfD. It may be that a summary could find a place in the Peachtree City, Georgia article to augment the information on the city's "system of golf cart paths".Tyrenius 18:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm guessing the Ptcg user in history is a perpetrator of this hoax/non-notable topic. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Snow / Speedy / Its gone. Tawker 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of nymphets and faunlets[edit]

inappropriate content for an encyclopedia. Load of POV listcruft. Actually, in the same vein as List of sex symbols. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? The list of sex symbols isn't up for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)

The "something similar to this article isn't up for deletion so this article shouldn't be deleted" argument has got to be the worst keep argument. Ever. -- Scientizzle 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems most people's problem with the list is the fact that it says 'nymphet and faunlet'... if it was strictly the POV they were worried about, they'd've also tagged the list of sex symbols and other 'POV' lists... but go ahead, delete it.

A lot of the people on this list are not children, either. Many of them also appear on the list for sex symbols66.181.234.82 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please deleteUser_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as patent nonsense. --InShaneee 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Mortal Kombat Caracters[edit]

No proper info. Badly written. Largely incoherent— Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Test Dummy[edit]

The website doesn't even exist yet - that makes it hard to be notable. BigDT 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you judge the value of a website on whether you have heard of it or not. There are literally millions of websites. Political Test Dummy plays in integral part in the development of youth opinion within the media in Australia. May I suggest you are out of touch. Judge on the merits of its aim, not the current numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.41.236 (talk • contribs)

The Website does exist, www.politicaltestdummy.com - Try reading the note that says they are currently 're-developing', not 'developing', but 're-developing. Or alternatively, attempt to Google the words 'Political Test Dummy'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.34.87 (talk • contribs)

Comment But right now there's nothing - perhaps wait until it's "redeveloped" before writing an article? Anyhow, it only gets 30 Google hits [3], that's nothing. In fact, 13 are from the website itself, 9 from Wikipedia, and the rest are just someone spamming in various webforums! Mdwh 14:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSF Lifecycle[edit]

This page appears to be part of someone's failed multilevel marketing campaign from 2005 --Msebast 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robitic Nightmare[edit]

Barely coherent jumble, notability not demonstrated - Richardcavell 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as patent nonsense. --InShaneee 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity worship[edit]

Originally, I listed it as a speedy as db-nonsense. The contributor removed my speedy tag. So I'm putting it here. BigDT 01:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barobax[edit]

nn slang term, used in Persian, which the article admits is mainly used by an underground band in Iran, and would appear to be very recent. This I think would not be particularly notable, as Iran is a conservative theocracy and an underground rock band would probably only be known to a few people who go against the conservative orthodoxy, which most likely strongly disapporves of such music. Also, the band has a website with no alexa rank, so I am dubioiuis of their influence on pop culture.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as advertising. --InShaneee 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Religion Data Archives[edit]

Contains nothing but a link to a website, gives no reason to believe it is notable. BigDT 01:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Tomic[edit]

An under-13 tennis player. He may become good one day, but there are many child wonders who never convert to the top echelons. It doesn't seem that he is notable on accounts of publicity, for the moment.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Raichu 15:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans at Dartmouth College[edit]

Non-notable student organization at my alma mater. Brian G. Crawford 01:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'd opt for just deleting that section in the article. It's a student group, so should go into the article specifically for Dartmouth College student groups, and any history items relating to Native Americans can just get merged into the history section. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyer Elementary School[edit]

Non-notable School with only 44 students. --Corporal Punishment 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Mailer Diablo 06:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid cocaine[edit]

This has been transwikied to Wikibooks acccording to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid Cocaine. I suspect this is a duplicate article that was overlooked. Brian G. Crawford 02:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, userfied article. Royboycrashfan 18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh C Dave[edit]

This is a vanity article. It was created by User:Cansur and is an autobiography. On top of this, the notability is not asserted Tony Bruguier 02:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; in addition to the copyvio as listed, the mod has been shut down as copyvio.  RasputinAXP  c 15:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's Special Forces[edit]

Mod with no assertion of notability. Delete as advertising and vanity. --InShaneee 02:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you may not see it as being 'notable enough,' the game during the last release was #3 on the Steam list of Half-Life engine games, second only to CounterStrike and Natural Selection, above Sven:Co-Op, The Specialists and HL2:Deathmatch, all of which have Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sailoralea (talk • contribs)

Depth of the article is not a criteria for deletion or inclusion. I could write ten pages about my neighbor's dog and it still wouldn't be worth including. Also, as it is, the information is mostly inappropriate game guide data like character stats and attacks. Night Gyr 07:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at most of the other half-life mods. All they talk about is weapons, types of gameplay etc. All "inappropriate game guide data." Besides, im not done with this article. I have a lot more to add.Metal_Mario333


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

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 15:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXPLOit[edit]

I googled and can't find any references to it. That's hardly conclusive - there are a ton of content management systems out there and plenty of them have exploits - so there is plenty of noise in the google results. The article doesn't tell the name of the manufacturer or link to their website so I'm inclined to think it could be either a hoax or a product that no longer exists. Still, even if it does exist, it doesn't appear notable. BigDT 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 02:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Stelmach[edit]

This should be a "speedy delete", but I don't know how to do that. Can anybody point me to it? Tony Bruguier 02:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can do that, but you can put ((db|reason)) on a page so that they will see it. --InShaneee 02:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as patent nonsense. --InShaneee 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aedrah[edit]

Speedy delete Tony 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not the place to bring these. --InShaneee 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Scott[edit]

Ex-mayor of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Fails WP:BIO ccwaters 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this article because that's all he is: a former mayor of a mid-sized city. There's nothing notable about him otherwise (attracting an unaffiliated low minor baseball team?). This nom isn't about the worthiness of the City of Lancaster or the verifiability(?) of his former position. He's just a guy who was a mayor once. I don't him being anywhere close to WP:BIO. ccwaters 18:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really think it's possible to be the mayor of a mid-sized city for six years and not do anything? Come on. The article itself spells out several accomplishments, and it's easy to find more. He was a WWII pilot who survived for 4 months behind enemy lines after being shot down over Germany, and was finally captured and held in a POW camp before escaping in 1945. He also wasn't elected out as mayor: he resigned so he could serve as Pennsylvania’s adjutant general. He easily passes WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really think it's possible to be the mayor of a mid-sized city for six years and not do anything: Yes I do. Quick what's the mayor of Toledo done in his term? Who knows and who cares outside of Toledo. My point is being a mayor shouldn't be an automatic notability qualification. With that said: the sum of all the tidbits you unearthed makes a rather interesting fellow. Too bad the article in its current state doesn't reflect that. I change my vote to needs work. ccwaters 20:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the mayor of a city of 650,000 people just sits around in a sash that says "MAYOR" on it and gives oversized novelty souvenir keys to visiting superheroes, you're wrong. The current mayor of Toledo has an article which lists quite a few accomplishments and controversies, including overseeing Toledo's larlgest building boom in history. He's so popular with voters that, since by law he can't serve 3 consecutive terms, he sat out for a term and got re-elected for a third term afterwards. Just think: as mayor of a city of 650,000 people, how many people know his name? How many times has he been mentioned in the newspaper? How many times has he been on the front page? How big a section will he get in local history books? How many people work for the city, and thus directly or indirectly work for him? How many billions of dollars of public funds does he manage? How many streets, bridges, and buildings are named after him? How many people, every day of their lives, are effected one way or another by the decisions he makes in office? And after all that, think again whether he's worth a kilobyte or two of article space on Wikipedia. The answer, I would think, should be obvious. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO endorses "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage". I haven't checked, but I would imagine a mayor would have significant press coverage at least during his term in office. He's also a member of the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs’ Hall of Fame. He was also a Major General, which to me, is significant in and of itself. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing this particular article anymore. I've been convinced. There's more to him than this article states. As far as "major local political figures": I guess I don't interpret that the same as you. To me that means a political figure of a major municipality OR a local politician that through some news event (positive or negative) has transcended their local sphere of influence. I don't feel the need to write up articles about Juanita Crabb or other former mayors of my hometown. Starblind what city are we talking about? Nether Lancaster or Toledo is anywhere near 650k. If you feel like continuing this dicussion, lets please find a different forum. I'm sure the AFD watchers are getting tired of this. Like I said before: I'm not arguing this specific article anymore. ccwaters 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Toledo, Ohio article cites a metro area population of 659,188. I'm glad you've been convinced of Scott's notability. Oh, and one last thing: the "major local political figures" part of WP:BIO doesn't apply here: it's from the section on living persons, while Scott has been dead since January 2005. With that said, I'll let this rest, but if anyone wants to discuss further my talk page is always open. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike wrathell[edit]

This person is not notable enough as per Google Tony Bruguier 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've got the AfD thing happening now. Nice one. Kevin 02:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shwarp[edit]

Delete. Prod was "Hoax. Googling (shwarp and golf) produces 29 n/a hits." Deprod by anon was "Regardless of Google results, this is not a hoax. It is a new word that is heard more and more frequently." Article was rewritten a bit by the anon, but the point remains the same. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAN(Remote Viewing)[edit]

Self-promotion. The Aaron Donahue article has already been deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Mailer Diablo 07:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per curium[edit]

Completing the AfD by anon user. Kevin 03:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I'm the original author. Sorry, don't flame me for being new at adding stuff. That was my first day of putting stuff up. Ok, and curiam is speeld the right way. Not curium. Sorry. Sorry that I didn't check the dictionary. I thought it was good, because no one else put it up. shadowj212


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holoworld Fleet[edit]

Non-notable play-by-email game, sounds like an ad. TorriTorri 03:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Origins[edit]

Delete - Non-notable as-yet unproduced fan film. Google search brings up only 54 returns, only 34 unique, and only half of those actually reference this film. MikeWazowski 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For accuracy STXI is not confirmed to be about Kirks Academy years. In fact Abrams said that part was false as he hadn't come up with a premise yet. EnsRedShirt 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I am one of the show's writers, and it was suggested we make a wiki page. We aren't crystal balling here, we have spent the last 3 months devoting our time for this..it's gonna happen. Dekethewriter 11:44 AM, 9 May, 2006 (EDT)
We aren't crystal balling here Has it been made? No? Then you're "crystal balling". --Calton | Talk 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No shows qre notqble before they qre produced.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flouron Emission Rays[edit]

Believed to be a hoax. See article talk page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Christopher Thomas 17:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Joe 17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty)[edit]

Not notable 43 google hits for Strashelye most of them from wikipedia. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses an important figure in the development of the Chassidic world. All of the material is documented and footnoted. There is no reason to delete this article. --Meshulam 06:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I can to clean up some of the things that you mentioned. I'll look for some more definite years (when R' Aharon lived, etc.).--Meshulam 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I am withdrawing my nomination. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean we can take down the delete business at the top of the page?--Meshulam 15:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Joe 03:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kapust[edit]

Not notable, While the name Kapust is popular, the Kapust which this article is talking about which is Kapust Chassidic dynasty is not notable as any google search will show. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, the nominator should not have placed this article for deletion while in the midst of an edit war with the author of this article. this seems like retaliation.)

Does that mean we can take down the delete box?--Meshulam 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 15:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tekoki[edit]

This "article" is a simple definition, and of a Japanese term at that, which links from a list of Japanese sex terms that is itself probably a good candidate for deletion. There's already an article at handjob, and this article is beyond POV. Delete, delete, delete. Exploding Boy 04:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on redirection. First, if we're to redirect tekoki we should redirect it to handjob (which is what it means), not to masturbation (which isn't the same thing). Second, I'm not convinced it needs redirecting at all. After all, this is the English Wikipedia. Why would anyone do a search on the Japanese word for "handjob"? By that rationale, we should include a redirect for words in every language. It's unnecessary, especially since there are already interlanguage links on the articles. Exploding Boy 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to provide a reasoning behind my decision, so here goes: 1. If I count !votes I get roughly 21 dels, 13 keeps, that's a 60% majority for deleting, but really in no man's land between no consensus (ca. 50%) and rough consensus (ca. 67%). 2. The policy on WP:NOT is very much in flux over whether glossaries are exemptions to the Not a dictionary provision. Unless there is consensus to strike the exemption I prefer to stick with the status quo ante (still reflected in Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)), which is that glossaries are acceptable. 3. Most importantly, the content of the article changed significantly in the last days of the debate [6] thanks mostly to edits by User:JJay, and this change was reflected in a number of delete→keep changes and late keep !votes, so the early "delete not sourced" !votes are no longer on solid factual ground. Taking these three factors into account I did not see that consensus for deletion was established. This is a no consensus closure though so it can be renominated anytime. I recommend waiting three to four weeks for the policy debate to be settled and to see if the article improves, and consider renomination then. But of course I might be wrong, and that's what we have WP:DRV for. ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese sex terms[edit]

List of Japanese sex terms (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This list contains Japanese terms for sex, sex organs, sex positions, and so on. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We should not be hosting random lists of foreign words. Although we do have some lists like this, unlike those there's no particular reason to maintain a list of sex terms in various languages, since sex-related articles on English Wikipedia are written in English, and those that are specifically on Japanese sex topics define all the terms they use. Exploding Boy 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Erm. Delete, obviously.[reply]

Really, folks, you gotta love inclusionists. Alright , let's examine:
  1. If you are using the definition of encyclopedic as "an alphabetical organization of fields of knowledge" then you are being pedantic. It is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, no matter how much it tries to fit a dictionary definition of encyclopedic. It is not a collection of verifiable facts. If you are saying that it is, then I respectfully think you are wrong and agree to disagree.
  2. If you are suggesting that articles, without sources, that are little more than stubs, that have existed in the same state for months, are verifiable, do you mean theoretically? Because, theoretically, anything is verifiable to some people. But it is not verifiable in terms of WP:V for a very large majority of terms on that list. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, apart from being demonstratably not an inclusionist (I've compared my AfD votes and it's pretty clear I'm a "centrist" on the issue - my keep arguments for articles that are deleted are a percentage of my keep arguments that equal to the percentage of my delete arguments where the article is kept) I'll show what the problem is when you vote to delete an article without first reading it.
If an article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, but not for "the spirit of an encyclopaedia" then voting to delete it clearly fails WP:NPOV. Rather than make value judgements about whether I particularly like a topic or not, I apply Wikipedia, she ain't paper and ask merely "Is it encyclopaedic?" - here even you admit the answer is yes, so I'll move on.
I'll ask is it sourced? For this article, the answer is yes - clearly it's important to read the article to determine whether or not it's sourced. Merely guessing can result in the wrong answer. Being sourced (such as this article is) brings the advantage of a vaguely NPOV test of notability - someone else has found it notable enough to document - this is (I believe) a much more NPOV test than Do I personally find this article interesting? WilyD 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that people aren't providing reasons for their "keep" votes. It's not enough to say it's encyclopaedic, particularly when so many have argued that it's inherently unencyclopaedic. While items on the list may be verifiable, that still doesn't provide a convincing rationale for keeping the list itself, as mentioned in the original post. Exploding Boy 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The justification for keeping the list is that it explains a variety of encylopedic topics grouped in an obvious way. Kappa 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't. It's just a list of non-English terms. All the Japanese sex-related articles should already appear in List of sexology topics, and every article that uses Japanese terminology should already be explaining those terms within the article. Exploding Boy 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. List of sexology topics doesn't explain anything, are you suggesting we add the explanations there? Kappa 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Amen to that. ShizuokaSensei 10:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a place for content concerns. That's why there's an edit button. WilyD 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but let it be noted that a major cleanup on this list was only done after the list was AFDd. Exploding Boy 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lesson here is, never attempt to clean up an article after it goes on AFD. Kappa 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of gay slang words and phrases is at least defensible on the grounds that the terms are in English. As for the other article.... it's been AFDd at least 5 times. Exploding Boy 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I checked as to why that list survived. "Like other 'lists of trivia', they are interesting and not detrimental to the encyclopedia." Seems like that could apply here as well. It is all verifiable info. Its interesting. Seriously, what is the point of lists at all, anyways? None of them are "unencyclopaedic." Delete this one, delete them 100%. MightyAtom 00:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts?ShizuokaSensei 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse Earth Rapturism[edit]

This is an obvious joke/nonsense page. If you google, the only results are Wikipedia and places that get their content from here. It could possibly be deleted as patent nonsense. One random note from the history - it looks like someone else started an AFD, but it got reverted? I guess they just didn't complete the process. Anyway ... how this thing has survived four months is beyond me. BigDT 05:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talmud Jmmanuel Logia[edit]

The page is redundant with Billy Meier and Talmud Jmmanuel. The main editor for this page intended it as a temporary page, used to rewrite one or both of those articles, but he has done nothing since April. I can see no reason to keep this page. Phiwum 05:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slouching[edit]

Delete - nn protologism that sadly couldn't fall through the prod process without the prod being removed. Wickethewok 05:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Resource Bank Initiative[edit]

Undeleted after a DRV dicussion did not produce a majority to endorse. And I am relisting on AFD for further discussion. The article was originally deleted as a recreation of Global Resource Bank (which can be viewed here), in turn deleted as a result of this AFD debate. DRV argued that this new version has some new information. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sex symbols[edit]

The article is inherently POV ("This is a subjective list") and thus inherently unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This list is both.

There was a previous AFD about a month ago that was 10-7 in favor of delete. Of the 7 voting to keep the list, two gave silly reasons. Four said that it needed to be trimmed substantially. It hasn't been and thus, it should be reconsidered for deletion.

See also discussion of a related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_nymphets_and_faunlets BigDT 06:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Raichu 16:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Morrison[edit]

Nonnotable biography with no incoming links -- FRCP11 06:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Glasscock[edit]

NN bio, no edits in six months; no non-Wiki google hits in top ten -- FRCP11 06:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Raichu 16:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend and The Makers[edit]

Undeleted after a DRV discussion, but many called for relisting this. Unsure about notability here so no vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayreuth Circle[edit]

Delete The 'Bayreuth Circle' is sometimes used as a shorthand for Winifred Wagner and her associates, and can be dealt with as such under WW. It was not a formal organisation, had no explicit aims insofar as it existed at all, and did nothing. Thus, not a topic for an article. --Smerus 12:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A false argument. The Vienna Circle is recognised by philosophers and historians of philosophy as a group of pepople who made a contribution to philosophy. The Bayreuth Circle is not recognised by historians (or anyone else) as a group of people who did or achieved anything at all.--Smerus 21:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, this citation is irrelevant and cannot support keeping this article - the NYt article concerns a book about the Wagner family, not the supposed 'Bayreuth circle'--Smerus 21:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 06:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: just because the word 'Kreis' has a capital letter in German doesn't raise the circle of Wagner enthusiasts to any sort of movement. Let me reemphasize: these enthusiasts did not have a 'great cultural impact on the age', nor were they 'a notable German historical phenomenon'. Anyone making such grandiose statements has at least a responsibility to provided some resepectable citation in support - of which we have seen none so far in this debate amongst the 'keeps'.--Smerus 17:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no specific opinion on whether it is in fact true that the circle had any notable effect - but the existence of scholarly literature such as that cited above indicates that such an idea exists out there and that the term has currency. Which for me is enough for inclusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the problem Eusebeus is pointing out. Someone writes a book with 'The Bayreuth Circle' in the title, to describe a social / political / cultural milieu, someone else puts it on WP as a formal body (it even has an organisation-stub tag, would you believe), and then its kept because there's a published title (in a language many of us don't read). Suddenly Winifred Wagner's music evenings have become the precursor to the SA. Utterly nonsensical. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - why not be bold and rewrite the article to give a better idea (as you seem very knowledgeable on the subject) of the origins of the phrase "Beyreuth Circle", the milieu it describes, and the objections to the use of the term? Seems to me as though the objections you are raising are an occasion for rewriting, not deletion. Vizjim 08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth do you mean, link 'between Wagner and the Nazis'? Wagner died in 1883. Hitler was born in 1889.--Smerus 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I was about to write [11], but that seems to only refer to the video game character. Yech. Anyway, link, connection, that which brings two things together. The Bayreuth Circle were a link between them - people connected with both, in fact people quite actively connecting them, in the sense of interpreting Wagner to support the Nazis, and encouraging the performance and even adulation of Wagner during Nazism. I'm not sure what the objection is. AnonEMouse 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for intruding, as I'm certainly by no means an expert on either Wagner's music nor German history, but it seems to me your objections are misplaced. Rather than rail for elimination of this article, wouldn't your time and energy be better spent in the article itself, trying to achieve historical accuracy? It seems fairly obvious that there are compelling reasons that the article should exist, given all the citations given; your job, it would seem to me, would be to put things in proper perspective in the article, like in a "Myths & misconceptions" section. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, are you the same ILike2BeAnonymous who on 7th May 'insisted' on keeping this article and claimed it was 'notable'? Why then don't you rewrite it? I would not wish personally to be associated with this non-topic in any way, and certainly would not to wish to give it undeserved status by writing it up or expanding it - that indeed is why I proposed deleting it. You may not agree with me, but at least I am consistent. :-) --Smerus 21:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would, if I were qualified to do so. I'm not, which puts me at the mercy of people like you. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the thing. If nobody is prepared to improve it soon, does it meantime lend undue credibility to a controversial idea? I am certainly not qualified to improve it. Guinnog 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I approve. Didn't read it all, but what I skimmed appears to have the proper arch tone and raised-eyebrow feel that your skepticism imparts to it. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re the references - I deliberately removed the German references. Neither I - nor anyone who has contributed - knows what these say. Someone picked up two reference titles from [www.copac.ac.uk] or somewhere, with articles in two obscure German periodicals, not exactly available through your local library. And how many English readers of Wikipedia could read thme, even if they could find them? English articles should show English sources, as a matter of principle - if none are available it's a sign of weakness of the article topic. sorry about the so-called 'Bnei Brith' quote - write in haste, repent at leisure. The quote is actually from a review of the autobiography of Wagner's self-hating grandson, and cannot count strongly as a powerful citation for the topic. I still think the article should be deleted, btw. --Smerus 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You actually removed 3 references, in English, that I put in, including 2 with quotes, from university sites. Please look at the "your edit" link I put in above. I'm glad to know that it was inadvertent, but I must ask that you be more careful about that. You're quite right that I haven't read the German references, but per WP:AGF, we need to assume that the editor who put them in has. We can't go around deleting all references we haven't read on the assumption that no one else has read them either. AnonEMouse 23:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted and restored the status quo ante, minus your most recent edits. As I pointed out in my edit summary, apparently Eusebeus attempted to accomplish by "editing" what he could not by deleting. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppers crossing cricket club[edit]

This is a suburban turf-cricket club in Melbourne. The highest type of cricket below interstate cricket is grade cricket. Turf cricket is a level below this, and is thus two tiers below first-class cricket. I don't think it is notable as a social phenomenon, as local suburban cricket matches usually attract 50 spectators.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest this makes a good case for deleting a lot of those lower baseball league entries too, as also being not notable enough. Paddles 15:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think a professional sports team drawing 151,000 paid spectators a season and which has included 90-odd major league players (San Jose Giants (California League)) in its history counts as non-notable. In no way are the SJ Giants "of the same level" as this club. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it reasonable to play the simple numbers game when you consider the huge difference in total population and supporting populations between Australia and the US. It is still a state league and as such is classed in the same level. Ansell 12:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jetha Lila[edit]

Unable to verify notability of subject matter. A query made using the Google search engine produces 64 relevant results, some of which merely duplicated/mirrored the Wikipedia entry. Folajimi 15:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 07:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Jetha Lila was a private bank founded in Zanzibar in 1880 by the Bombay-born merchant Jetha Liladhar, later taking responsibility for control of Zanzibar's finances. The bank's initial operations were confined to banking commission activities, however in 1910 it began money-changing and in 1920 represented the interests in Zanzibar of the Westminster Bank. In 1933 it was issued a trading license by the Zanzibar government to operate as a bank, and became responsible for controlling Zanzibar's financial interests from the 1930's until the 1964 revolution in Zanzibar and the overthrow of its Sultan. During that time, (etc, etc....)
(References added at end)"
I'm not sure of all the facts on this subject, so the above will probably need to be rewritten somewhat. Given the sources you have, it should be possible to produce something like the above which I am sure everyone here would support. Much of the battle over the notability of subjects in Wikipedia article is won or lost in the first sentence of the article; that's why it's best to start with a sentence that clearly defines the subject, hence: Jetha Lila was a private bank founded in Zanzibar in 1880. --BillC 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. I bit the bullet and did it, incorporating the original text and facts, the text above, and a contribution from Lambiam. If anyone feels this should not have been done, or should have been done differently, then feel free to revert me or edit the article. (I also removed the Wikify notice, and assigned categories to the article). --BillC 21:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me your lesson on semantics/syntax; I meant what I said, and you are free to interpret that as you see fit. Starting out with adjectives like "absurd" and "uninformed" is anything but congenial.
FWIW, I had thought of ignoring your remarks (as I did with Dsmdgold's conflagratory rhetoric); but I will make one more attempt at clarifying my case before a mêlée erupts...
My best efforts (which includes google queries, and searching the catalog of my region's central library) failed to yield any reliable sources/references which would have helped establish the notability of the subject matter. The perception of conflation regarding notability with verifiability is inaccurate; the issue I had with the nominated entry was the apparent lack of sources which could be verified, not the article's content.
At any rate, I hope this AfD gets closed by an admin soon, since the nomination's raison d'être has been OBE'd — the current article looks radically different when compared to the nominated entry. Folajimi 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no mêlée. However, I think confusing civil with civilised is itself a violation of WP:CIV... Hornplease 14:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walstad's Paradox[edit]

Claims to be related to set theory, but unreferenced and no signs of rigor. Not a standard mathematical concept anywhere as far as I can tell. Google yields 3 hits, one of which is this article, and the other two are from discussion forums, so very non-notable.

I am also nominating the biographical page of the person who purportedly devised the above theory as NN.

You may wish to better acquaint yourself with Russell's Paradox before attempting to disprove it. -- GWO
Thank you for your comment, I truly appreciate it. I am very familiar with Russell's Paradox. Did you read what I just stated above? Russell's Paradox is based off the assumption that the set of all sets can not contain itself because the power set of the set of all sets must be bigger than the set of all sets itself. However, this is incorrect and the reason is because Russell did not know or did not realize that the size of the set of all sets is 1/0, and there can be no greater number. Thus the power set of the set of all sets is no bigger than the set of all sets itself, and thankfully, this means that the set of all sets can contain itself. In turn this means that the set of all sets which do not contain themselves may be defined as the empty set, for in reality everything is self-containing and it must be so since there is no greater number than 1/0. Hopefully this clears up the confusion.Bossk2 20:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
No. It isn't. Russell's paradox makes absolutely no reference to power sets. Russell's paradox is merely that a set defined as "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves" is not well-defined. That's it. No power sets, no cardinality, no infinities, and certainly no need to talk about the magnitude of 1/0.
Love,
An actual mathematician.


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

The result of the debate was redirect to National stereotypes. Nothing there to merge.  RasputinAXP  c 15:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National typecasts[edit]

overlaps content on several other pages --M@rēino 17:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does contain some extra information- as to the formation of typecasts. Perhaps some facts could be transferred to another page if this one must be deleted.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 07:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, fails WP:WEB.  RasputinAXP  c 15:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LudumDare[edit]

a non-notable website that holds an insignificant contest every two years Notorious4life 18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the website is non-notable, most of the contests (two per year btw.) were held without it, and it likely will disappear again soon and come up again in half a year, at the current address or another. The event itself however seems to be quite well known among game programmers. --Allefant 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just removed the part about the website from the article, so consider only the significance of the competition event. --Allefant 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be easy to verify the relevance for game programmers: There was a slashdot article on it, and it's usually announced on several game programming sites like gamedev. --Allefant 00:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, recurring event regularly covered on slashdot and in other major tech media outlets. Needs some cleanup though. Night Gyr 21:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Mutambara[edit]

NOTE: Article is identical in content to Zimbabwe News, which is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on development in Zimbabwe

This is a fairly clear case of a personal essay (about Arthur Mutambara, leader of one faction of Zimbabwe's Movement for Democratic Change). It may be fairly cogently argued but it is not an encyclopaedia article. David | Talk 08:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Looking at both sides, I the arguments in favour of deletion outweigh the arguments in favour of keep. If this school is notable enough (and not just another small private school like many others that advertise on late night TV), I have no prejudice against the recreation of this article as long as it is no longer an ad. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olean Business Institute[edit]

Advertisement

  1. Lincher 19:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 09:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. abakharev 12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Kalinchuk[edit]

Not notable enough, Delete abakharev 10:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedied the article as per Kevin and BHG abakharev 12:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nayh[edit]

Non-notable chat site. Makes no claim passing WP:WEB, no Alexa rank. Weregerbil 10:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like ad copy. Does this group have any achievments to date? --woggly 10:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see WP:RS, as mentioned above. ergot 16:04, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry B. Scott[edit]

Asserts insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janey[edit]

Very minor fictional character. Delete or merge to The Simpsons. --Nlu (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Mundlapati[edit]

This guy has no specific content nor any special track record. malapati 10:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However I'd like give you some back ground. 80% of people in India are suffering from too much sarcasm and social injustices for the past 4000 years. I wanted to inject compassion and hence I've created sasiprize to set an example. Since then I am also using "unknown" as user name so that I can be neutral and objective. unknown 04:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by Brookie. Capitalistroadster 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's Stag Party[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web space provider. Please try www.myspace.com instead. Weregerbil 10:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus-Metaphor[edit]

Edit history shows that this is from an unpublished thesis of the contributer, which would make it clear original research. Was prodded by another editor, prod removed, so taking it to afd MartinRe 10:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It presents a novel approach to user-centred interface design, so its not established yet, but well accepted in the research community (if you count peer-reviewed international conferences). Obviously I am the researcher working on this theory, but my description of the approach here on Wikipedia is by all means meant to be objective.

You can find out more about my work on: [[22]]. I am part of the Human-Centred Systems Group at University College London. Here you can also find that a second paper on this approach will be published in September in Germany with Oldenbourg, another well known publisher for research along with a presentation at Mensch & Computer conference.

I will revise this article asap besides all the other stuff I have to do, so that it fits as good as possible with the wikipedia standards.

Please let me know what other concerns anyone has with sharing this approach on wikipedia. You can also get in touch with me personally, as I think that the means of communication through wikipedia are by far to complicated and inefficient... --Slaqua 17:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The publication record indeed strikes me as if it might make this borderline verifiable in our sense. I might reconsider if the article got a better intro that stated more clearly the context and scope of this idea: Name the field of science this belong to, give a proper definition, explain its claim to notability, etc. I'm still not entirely sure, though. Not every novel technical idea that somebody publishes somewhere gets an article here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It states: "For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it might be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper ... If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source." As I mentioned earlier, this research has been peer-reviewed by various experts of the field and confirmed for publication. It is published with Springer, a very reputable publisher for research. It has been presented at a reputable international conference, being acknowledged by fellow researches. Further work on this theory is being published and presented in September (again reputable publisher and conference - it's German chapter of ACM). I think this kind of review process (taking months for every paper) is by far more accurate and reliable than publishing stuff at a newspaper - which all you should know. So stating newspaper level verification as a measure for reliability in wikipedia policies should than by far be met for this article. --Slaqua 14:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems also interesting that my vote for keeping the article has been deleted - no idea who that was - maybe you guys should also check your objectivity ?! - Or teach me, if I am not allowed to vote ?! --Slaqua 14:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, that appears to have been removed in error by IP address 81.1.118.241, when they posted the update above[23]. I've taken the liberty of putting it back in again. Regards, MartinRe 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. see below Being presented at a conference, and published in the procedings, is not necessarily peer-reviewed. I do not list my papers which were presented in that manner in my publication list. I don't see it as yet meeting WP:V. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sorry, do I get something wrong here? These papers have been peer-reviewed, in fact by six international researchers - or do you want to say that I lie ? I do not really understand the measures with which people seem to judge here. I do not know what things you have published, or where - feel free to let me know. I clearly state, who I am, what I do, where it has been published. If you feel that is not sufficient for Wikipedia policies - of course I cannot say anything, after all its a democratic collaborative tool, but please keep in mind these policies when you judge yourself and stay objective.... thanks a lot. --Slaqua 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm just saying that conference proceedings are not necessarily peer-reviewed to the extent of "traditional" journals, in that what was presented is what is published, rather than what was invited to have been presented (which was subject to peer review). (The publications now in the references do not qualify as peer-reviewed. Your thesis does, but that touches on WP:VAIN.)
Changed vote to Delete without prejudice. The problem is a mixture of WP:V and WP:VAIN, so that if someone other than the primary authors of the concept writes an article, quoting published, fully peer-reviewed works (other than conference proceedings, theses, etc.), a technically correct article could be written. It's clear that WP:N is met, as there are articles about web sites based on this model (or metaphor, if you prefer), but the correct, verifiable, name is open for consideration. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First of all thanks for the productive criticism Arthur, I honestly appreciate the going through the arguments, rather than just voting for delete and then leaving it there. Nevertheless, I am not sure, whether maybe in your area of mathmatics, the common way to publish your work is a different one. I know that especially in social sciences, much focus is on journal publications, often based on the final thesis of a PhD. I am not sure how it is with maths ?! However, in computer science, most researchers publish primarily at important conferences like CHI (other ACM's), IEEE conferences or also Interact. That might have to do with the fast changes in the field that you as a researcher want to stay ahead of as much as possible of course. In terms of peer-reviews, again I am not sure how it works in other fields, but the paper I submit for peer-review is finished paper, including all theory, all experiments, all analysis. What you do after the peer-review are minor revisions for the final version to go to print with the publisher and maybe in response to some reviewers comments. --Slaqua 00:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The JPS talk to me 12:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch coming to the New World[edit]

I don't think that Wikipedia is the appropriate place for a presentation of what fourth grade students in one school or another have recently studied. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 12:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was blanked by creator - "GO ON YOU KNOB HEADS! DELETE IT ALL!" - okay. DS 13:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working for free (fetish)[edit]

I prod tagged this with the concern : Unencyclopædic POV rant. Tag was removed with no explanation. It's subsequently had a ((POV)) tag added, also removed with no explanation. As it's still an unencyclopædic POV rant I'm taking it to AfD Tonywalton  | Talk 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment author has subseqently removed the ((afd)) tag, again with no explanation. Replaced but I have the feeling it'll keep going away. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was heck, I wish I could come to Down Under - delete. Mailer Diablo 15:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Australia[edit]

Seems to be a vanity article without notability Stlemur 12:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

GameWikis[edit]

Fails WP:WEB Eric Sandholm 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subconsciousmind[edit]

Someone's promotion of a personal music project Skysmith 13:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When is a musical project personal, and when is it professional?

look at entries like Gataka or Haltya just psychedlic trance producers like subconsciousmind. if you delete subconsciousmind, why not them?

Worldwide liveacts and releases are done by all of them.

this is psytrance, absolutely small scene. Check if you find the albums of the artsits mentioned above in more places. psyshop, beatspace, juno etc. these are the shops for this scene, and there you find all of the albums. All I say is: If you delete this, you have delete the others too. gfuehlsweid has been sold 2000times, in psytrance meassures, this is a very good value.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zipmic[edit]

Delete non-notable webcomic, fails WP:WEB. The article has no assertion of notability. Google for "zipmic comic" returns 6 hits: 2 to this Wikipedia article, 2 to the zipmic site itself and 2 to a list of webcomics. Prod'ed but prod was removed. May also be vanity article Gwernol 13:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashcroft Homes[edit]

Likely fails WP:CORP, the article seems to be a promotion for a builder; whether egregious or not, advertising is a violation of the deletion policy Geogre 14:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BeerTools Pro[edit]

Delete. This reads like an ad, and for a product apparently not even on the market yet. BD2412 T 14:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Goldberg[edit]

This person is non-notable, nor he's famous beyond what he does. --Janarius 21:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is Laurie Burg up? She's not that famous...and she's up...I don't see why Stephen Goldberg has to be deleted.. (Laicos)
Then you ask to vote for deletion for Laurie Burg and I would do it. Unless it is improved.--Janarius 21:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you put Stephen Goldberg up for deletion and not Laurie Burg? She is a principal of a school too...Why does Stephen Goldberg have to be deleted? (Laicos)
I have based my decision on Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria, it would appear that Stephen Goldberg is not notable. Unless there are more notable information to add. Thank you--Janarius 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a terrible editor of wikipedia! I am a failure...i never do anything right...(sobs) (Laicos)
you can start learning to improve yourself and contribute to wikipedia.--Janarius 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyway of saving the article from being deleted? (Laicos)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Burg[edit]

There's very little information here.--Janarius 21:41, 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 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech_Dual-action[edit]

This article contains nothing notable at all, and barely any text period; there are at least a dozen other "Dual Shock" clones out there share the exact same characteristics "listed" here- the article itself contains nothing that would seperate this controller from any of the aforementioned clones. In fact, the page's sole "distinguishing" feature is a false claim that no other joystick has key-mapping software with it. Daniel Davis 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Secret des Vikings[edit]

Non notable: Here is a Google Search For references to the author of the book, in English, where the text string "is a pseudohistorical work by the French" (which is from the Wikipedia article) does not feature on the same page (the point of the exclusion being to isolate internet hits other than ones from Wikipedia or mirror sites of this particular page). There are four entries, and all are mirrors of this now deleted (by me) paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Vikings.

That is to say, the only mention of this author or this book are courtesy of Wikipedia and mirror sites.

Additionally, the book is in French, doesn't appear to have been translated into English, so while it may be notable enough for the French Wikipedia, it isn't notable in the English one. ElectricRay 15:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. There are certainly plenty of articles en Français, certainly, and yes, it is listed on Amazon.FR (but not ~.com or ~.co.uk): - try repeating your Google search in English only. With that additional restriction (which was mentioned in my original post, note) the only mentions are, quelle surprise, mirrors of the now deleted Wikipedia section article on Vikings, and there are only a very few of them. With respect, I disagree with the view expressed elsewhere on the AfD that a book written in French that has not been translated into English, nor rated any mention anywhere on the internet on English (taking Google as a pretty good proxy for "the internet") can somehow be notable on English Wikipedia. Feel free to add an article to the French Wikipedia, if that is your wont, but as the consensus (which I don't understand you to dispute), even from the author of the article, is that this is "pseudohistory" - i.e., bunk - it seems difficult to divine a possible conceptual reason for notability in English for this article. ElectricRay 00:32, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional brain[edit]

This page was first questioned in June 2005, and sources were first explicitly requested in August 2005. None have appeared. The article is not verifiable, and possibly original research. --Hughcharlesparker 15:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno Radio[edit]

prod removed. Seems that they're trying to use wikipedia to find sponsors. Bachrach44 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment when I first nominated it, it wasn't empty. Check the history for more details. --Bachrach44 16:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somatopia[edit]

Somatopia is a neologism coined by Lycoming College professor Darby Lewes for the stock metaphor of the female body as landscape. It clocks up altogether 11 unique ghits, the top one from Wikipedia. The others are from the title of the monograph, so usage has really really not caught on.

The article itself is unreferenced original research at its finest. Dr Zak 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've never edited this article. Mdwh 01:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 at author's request.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalaha/Denmark women's national handball team[edit]

The article is empty. kalaha 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 at author's request.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalaha/Handball kit[edit]

The article is empty. kalaha 15:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 at author's request.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalaha/National handball team[edit]

The article is empty. kalaha 16:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 at author's request.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalaha/WWHC 2005 participants[edit]

The article is empty. kalaha 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Guthrie[edit]

Nom, & vote
Del on, this pathetic also-ran, who doesn't even qualify as a politician: people who neither are involved in making policy, nor have any chance of starting to do so without an election upset that would be of interest mostly for its bizarreness, are fringe activists, and may be presumed n-n until real influence or attention to them is demonstrated. This guy's greatest distinction is polling best among 3rd-party candidates in one state in one year. Running 3rd with 3%, where the victor got a landslide, is the height of irrelevance. I may be too cautious in having made this a ProD instead of a speedy-del.
Jerzy•t 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In my congressional district, the Democratic candidate was the same for the last two elections before this year. Does this mean he's notable? No, it means he volunteered to be the sacrificial lamb in a safe incumbent's district. Fan1967 02:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I'm amazed that people want to delete this article. I restored his bio information. He's an active member of his community, and an active participant of our Democracy. Leave him out of the print version if you wish, but leave the online version. It's been here since December of 2004, and we're just now lookingn for viability? That's wrong. Chadlupkes 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Print version"????? Fan1967 22:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change to earlier delete vote. I would consider changing vote if he had a published book or often-cited research papers, or had notable speed skating performances at a national or international level. Simply being a lecturer doesn't automatically confer notability. Simply being a competitive speed skater doesn't automatically confer notability; I know someone with a world ranking in snowboarding but wouldn't consider him wikiworthy. The argument that the page has been present since December 2004 is specious, I'm sure there are hundreds of pages on non-notables that haven't been marked AfD simply because they haven't been found yet. AFAIK no-one is suggesting Guthrie is a bad person - just, in the context of an international encyclopaedia (he's not a participant in my democracy) and on the basis of the information in the article, not notable enough to warrant inclusion. Paddles 00:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, defaults to redirect to Beth Nahrain, already redirected by Sargonious. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nahrainean[edit]

This article is a complete fiction. The term Nahrainean is a new coinage by User:Sargonious: it receives no Google hits [25], and is not present in published works on Mesopotamia past or present. This appears to be the pipe dream of a teenage Assyrian. — Gareth Hughes 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATTACK: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Although I understand your frustration, Gareth, please. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 17:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


2000 hits or not, it is still a valid article.

  • Comment And ... here comes the march; the two comments above constitute the sole contributions of the editors to Wikipedia. RGTraynor 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Evidence of the tern Nahrainean/Nahrainiean/Nahraini: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=nahraini&btnG=Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=nahraya&ei=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&fr=moz2 http://www.google.com/search?q=nahraya&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

  • Comment - Eight extra hits, which in context of the links each and every one of them a misspelling of "Bahraini?" That's desperately unconvincing, frankly. RGTraynor 18:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another first-time contributor. RGTraynor 18:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5q3zn2NENQQA.D5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB2cXVjNTM5BGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZAM-/SIG=12cb444ad/EXP=1147466099/**http%3a//syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No1/HV3N1VanRompay.html

Under article 16 it mentions NAHRAYA which is Syriac for Nahrainean.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.7.70 (talk • contribs)

  • ... or Syriac for the more common translation "Mesopotamian," as the article agrees with. Either way, Nahrainean would then (arguably) be a duplicate for Mesopotamia or Beth Nahrain (I feel more of the latter) and should be redirected as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and shouldn't have every inflection of the word, or the two articles (since the content is so similar) should be merged. Why argue over the existance of a duplicate article? The point of this is not an attack upon your person, beliefs, or identity, it's to keep Wikipedia free of redundancy. If the article is merged or redirected, when someone types in "Nahrainean" they'll find themselves with the exact same information, no? אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I DO NOT disagree with a redirect. I stated previously it was fine with me. I will go ahead and redirect and just add in a sentence in the Beth Nahrain article that Nahrainean or Beth-Nahrainean is the Anglicized form of Nahraya or Beth=Nahraya which is Syriac for Mesopotamian which is a broader term. Beth Nahrain means "the Land of Rivers" where Mesopotamia is Greek for "the Land between Rivers." There is a distinction. It could be even argued that Beth Nahrain should be merged into Mesopotamia with a statement on that article explaining the two terms.King Legit


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. An incorrect name is not a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion anyway; WP:RM is the proper forum for that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of consent in North America[edit]

The name is factually incorrect, the article violates WP:NOR, as it is not verified. Delete Ardenn 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix rpg[edit]

Wikipedia is not a guide to every mod for every game written ever. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i realise this, but im not doing it for every mod made for every game ever made, this is just for that mod, because i think it should be up there, becasue it is a well liked mod. Are there any other reasons you think it should not be allowed?

I see no where in the rules where it says this is not allowed, and i spent 2 hours reading them. None of the views are biased all the information is informative.

Delahuex reply:

No sorry, the date i put for release was the new update, it has actually been out for around 3 months now, and therefore is well liked. You say it lists 2 dozen mods, yet we are the only mod to take inicitive to make a wiki page, because we have the confidence that it is worth it. We currently have 211 members to our mod that play regularly. The date i set was for the new server upgrade and the new mod, since this was the massive release with bug fixes and more, and with already 211 members, we can only grow. I realise your argument, but i really think this is worth it. If no-one else agrees with me then fine, i concede, and dont worry about being condescending, i can live with it ;) Plus the best feature line is fair enough, ill chnage that, and the exclamation marks. COme on this is my first wiki page :) Plus, delahuex and delahue are different people.

Delahuex reply:

Ok, you have raised valid points, i will concede this time, delete it if you must. ;) No problem, ill just have to find anothe ronline free encyclopedia to post it on :S


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbetsförnedringen[edit]

Wikipedia is not a Swedish dictionary. This word is also nominated for deletion at Swedish Wikipedia and will very very likely be deleted, see AfD nomination on Swedish Wikipedia Thuresson 16:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Förnedring means humiliation, it's not that insulting but still... --Eivindt@c 01:34, 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 USERFY —Whouk (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luka (Verbal Vets)[edit]

Article has apparently been written by its subject. I don't think this really asserts notability and it smacks of a vanity article to me. "Natural Born Spitters" isn't in Allmusic, either, and generally doesn't seem to get a lot in the way of Google hits. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 16:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there is a whole bunch of pages redirecting to this one, such as Łukasz Krawczyk, Luka (NBS), Luka NBS and so forth. -- Captain Disdain 16:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrology[edit]

No reference to mirrology in article, as far as I can tell it is a neologism. The incident described and Fa-Tsang seems to be real (see, for instance, here), but this explanation doesn't make much sense. Can it be merged into Huayan? There is no indication of source so perhaps it's not worth bothering. No incoming links. Rigadoun 16:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 —Whouk (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Born Spitters[edit]

I don't think these guys are particularly notable. Google doesn't give a whole lot in the way of hits, AMG hasn't heard of them, and at the very least the tone of the text is very, very far from NPOV ("Their calm but confident swagger for their music is impressive."), especially as the article has apparently been written by their promoter. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 16:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Additionally, I'd also like to list Rahim Muhammad and Imam Bilal-Firmin, AKA Rah Vital and E'Flash, respectively, under the same AfD simply because their only claims to fame are being members of this group and and they have been listed by the same person -- the group's apparently promoter -- who wrote this article. -- Captain Disdain 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to List of Silent Hill locations. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midwich Elementary School[edit]

Non-notable location in a video game and the movie adaptation of it. Little possibility of meaningful expansion. --InShaneee 16:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeinfo[edit]

Advertisement. --mtz206 16:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as previously deleted reposted information. --InShaneee 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic infomysticism[edit]

Persistent re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-reposting of original research (I hope I counted the "re-"s correctly, this is at least the eleventh time this article gets created and deleted under different names). Author unsurprisingly contests deletion. Weregerbil 16:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Phish Tour[edit]

This article (and all other articles that relate to a tour by Phish) can be considered fancruft 66.2.141.70 16:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl Who Turned to Stone (video game)[edit]

Contested prod. Article's creator has a history of creating hoax articles with sockpuppets. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Girl Who Turned to Stone. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Bland Hack Productions"[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable movie production company formed by some students. DJ Clayworth 17:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Rashman[edit]

Not found on IMDB. -- 9cds(talk) 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, then redirect to The Show. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The show[edit]

Non-notable film projects dont qualify as an encyclopedic topic. Most content is POV, and contains no sources for the claims (presumably because the authors are using first-hand knowledge). Links to film cast point to Wikipedia user pages rather than articles of notable actors. (To the authors: I'm sure this show was fun to make, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not YouTube.) Remy B 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Sonic Wild Fire. There are three possible redirect targets mentioned by three different people. The last one appears to be the correct one, since all indications are that this rumour turned out to be named as the last option. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Sonic[edit]

Speedied, restored, and prodded by User:Royboycrashfan, then deprodded by User:TheCoffee, this article appears to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete unless properly sourced. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq lists it as a third-party title announced at Nintendo's E3 conference.[27].


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution International[edit]

Blatant advertising for a non-notable company. SCHZMO ✍ 18:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeon Play[edit]

Non-notable phrase, neologism, possible hoax. A google search for "Pigeon Play" + phrase turns up nothing to suggest anybody says this.[29] The only usage is in news stories on the pigeon movie Valiant. Nydas 18:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and expand, though the appropriate tag has already been applied. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honduras Sign Language[edit]

This page is as good as empty. Jadriaen 18:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was heck, delete. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck[edit]

Popular but non-notable figure of speech, article is complete and utter nonsense. Wikipedia does not have an article for the more popular What the hell? Nydas 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Pyles[edit]

Vanity page. Only claim to notability is author of an unpublished book. Properly belongs as a user page. In fact, the editor of the article has a user page which includes the exact same text. If either the author or the book is notable, someone else would write the entry. Jinian 19:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quelvyn's Rede[edit]

Unpublished book by first-time author. Sounds like a good story, but hardly encyclopedic. Jinian 19:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Domhain Chronicles[edit]

Series consists of one unpublished story. See above for articles on both story, Quelvyn's Rede, and author, Nathan Pyles. All non-notable. Jinian 19:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Guardians of Ga'hoole. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'hoole series[edit]

There's already an article called Guardians of Ga'hoole. The "Guardians of Ga'hoole Series" article was created shortly after it's writer replaced the text on the original article with a brief note claiming that the article had to be deleted because it (supposedly) contained inaccurate information. There's no reason to have two articles on the subject, and no reason to have vandalised the Guardians of Ga'hoole article. Steveo2 19:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circle hand game[edit]

This probably needs to go through an AfD discussion sooner rather than later. It has the same problems as The Game (game) before that Dutch language newspaper article was found, and List of school pranks. I know this "game," or more precisely, method of bullying exists, but I believe it is subject to too much specific variation and natural evolution to write a comprehensive encyclopedia article about it. Reducing it to its lowest common denominator (circled fingers, look, punch) may just make for a definition. While I think it should be deleted, it's not a strong delete, and even if I could delete articles on my own, I'd definitely get a consensus first. This will make an interesting precedent, at any rate. Brian G. Crawford 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per JzG, any worthwhile information is already in the pranks article, so Delete. ScottW 13:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klawog[edit]

nn brand named product, less than 100 unique Google hits. It has been suggested that this be transwikied to Wiktionary, but I disagree, brand names shouldn't go there. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The consensus appears to be slightly in favour of keep, but even then, the arguments were borderline enough for me to close this as a no consensus rather than a keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice guy syndrome[edit]

This was nominated two years ago (see Talk:Nice guy syndrome), and two years later, the concerns expressed by the original nomination have not been addressed. It's essentially original research and speculation and very heavy generalization and exactly what WP:OR was written to prevent, namely patent crankery. There are a lot of men who don't get what they want out of relationships, but I doubt they're all in the same boat due to some fictitious "syndrome." There's already a slightly better article at Love shyness, but I don't recommend a merge as much of the information is duplicated. Acceptance of this term in mainstream psychiatry would make me think otherwise, but right now, I say delete. There's possibly a precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gnosticism. Brian G. Crawford 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agilis Software[edit]

Delete. Not particularly notable by WP:SOFTWARE or WP:CORP. Article was prod'ed; notice removed with no changes. discospinster 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - brenneman{L} 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 2 Superjump[edit]

Article about glitches which consists of rehashed information and original research. Delete per WP:NOT Gamefaqs, as were other articles about glitches.--Zxcvbnm 21:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Alex 74.133.188.197 23:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 textbook ((nn-bio)). Stifle (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Rose Tenney[edit]

nn, other than being the daughter of two actors of varying fame (Jon Tenney and Terri Hatcher.) Has no credits of her own in IMDB, Google search only turns up bios of her parents. Ckessler 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friend zone[edit]

Another pop psychology crank theory, consisting of a dictionary definition plus original research, caught between the Scylla of WP:WINAD and the Charybdis of WP:NOR. What is verifiable is a dictionary definition, and attempts to expand venture into original research. Yes, I've seen it on TV too, but I don't think the advertising tagline "As seen on TV!" is a criterion for inclusion. Brian G. Crawford 21:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you really got to know it. You're just going on a snap judgement! --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first line says that it is mentioned in "many texts". I'd like to see some evidence of that. Kevin 04:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Mythology Cheat Codes[edit]

Unencyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a game guide. Was PRODded by me but removed without explanation. ...Scott5114 22:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon44w[edit]

Alexa ranking of 534,934, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Note that the prod was removed without comment, but I was actually looking at the Alexa ranking for another site (because a spammer changed it). Rory096 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder theory[edit]

This is a pop psychology theory published only on the web. I don't think this passes the WP:WEB guideline. From the article: "Though it has generated some interest in online communities, it has not been seriously evaluated by any studies, journals, or social psychologists." That tells me it's not notable as a psychological theory and should be deleted. Brian G. Crawford 22:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NUS High Entertainment Society[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 Speedied as A7: Article about a group of people (band) making no claim of notability —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Blank Page Dream[edit]

delete un-notable band , a contested prod --Melaen 22:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Whether this defaults to a keep or a merge is up for discussion, but outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walking With a Ghost (song)[edit]

Very small article about a non-notable song from a not widely-known album. Delete —Mets501talk 22:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Flowerparty☀ 07:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Miller Fan Club[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 delete. Flowerparty☀ 07:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyPersonalEmail.com[edit]

Not notable, no support, poorly written, certain editors are making blatant attempts to spam web-mail based articles to advertise. Website does not appear to live up to article, to say the least. Lakhim 22:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, but I repectfully disagree. MyPersonalEmail.com is a noted old school, free email site. See Tulsa World Newspaper, October 28-2001. This article is as informational as any web mail provider, with less fluff and just fact. Alexa is not the know all of the internet. Millions of users in 140 countries are hard to argue with.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/MyPersonalEmail.com"

Sure, go the http://www.tulsaworld.com and do a search, it's all there, online and in print. The writer at the World was NICOLE NASCENZI and a seach of their site shows 5 or so articles: You cannot cut and paste the link because they use VBSscrips, so you have to search the archives

Can we please get a cut and paste summary or a screenshot of forementioned article? I don't buy this, nor do I suspect do many other wikipedians. --Lakhim 00:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment in IE the link works ok, but the link does not work in Firefox, which tells me it won't validate as W3C HTML J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mets or who ever you are, it does not say register here, it says CLICK HERE and it works wonderfully, really, thousands have signed up today. How do you defend who you are? We know who we are, You are just plain wrong. You seem to have some other motive. Do you work for Microsoft? You have phoney pictures of yourself with Bill Gates. We emailed your gmail account, please reply and we will call you directly on the old fashioned internet, the telephone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.5.90 (talk • contribs)

That was an unnecessary personal attack. I wrote to you on your talk page, please go there by clicking on this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mets501 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet_Prophet[edit]

This article is sub sub encyclopedic. It is in reference to a minor activity of a minor organization recently deleted from wikipedia for lack of significance and lack of existence (Universist Movement). Furthermore, the facts of the article are incorrect, as the "velvet prophet" appears to be a nude photo of Marilyn Monroe. This "article" is a hoax. Universist 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. TheProject 05:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usability test[edit]

Currently a transwikied dicdef; should be either merged and redirected to Software testing, or deleted. I'm not sure which, so I'm looking for a consensus here. TheProject 23:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elemental_programming[edit]

Possible WP:Vanity or WP:NOR- it was created and has only been edited by User:Hans_Oesterholt, who seems to be author of the website from which most of the text is copied. Most of the google hits are references to that page without actually discussing the concept - the exceptions in the first 50 ghits were using the term "elemental" in the sense of "basic", not in the metaphysical sense of this article. If it is actually notable in the Scheme programming world, it needs to indicate its notability, and at the least clarification of the copyright. Jamoche 23:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal in Islamic countries[edit]

Strong Delete The idea of having this article is a POV. This is as much riduclous as "Metal in Western countries" or "Metal in Christian countries" (How about having that on Asian Wikipedia?!). There is no shared 'Heavy metal' scene in 'Islamic countries'. Infact, the Metal bands in the 'Islamic countries' sing against Islam in most cases, which is why they are usually banned from playing live and their materials are only released in bootlegs. To have an article and put them together under the title of "Heavy metal in Islamic countries" is very much POV from a western perspective, and the whole idea is wrong. I had asked the contributer many times to forget about this idea but sadly he doesn't listen. - K a s h Talk | email 09:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering heavy metal is "western" and sometimes controversial in western countries and "western" music is banned in Iran and certain bands are banned in Maylasia, Pakistan, etc. it is a worthy article. Arbusto 02:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are correct to say that there is no common theme, I am not too sure about Metal in e.g. Pakistan, but the theme for Metal in Iran for example is about history of Iran. However to say they are not notable is a POV also. I had explained that it is of great important to Iranians, and as there was a list on that article with over 100 or so bands you can hardly deny it's existance, or it's importance.The articles just need expanding - K a s h Talk | email 09:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "list" in question was comprised entirely of external links to unnotable bands, none of whom had a WP article, and therefore flew in the face of WP:NOT, WP:MUSIC and WP:EL. The importance of this topic to Iranians, or anyone else, has not been verified. All of these factors add up to a massive failure of WP:V, an official policy. Deizio 13:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The importance of rock music has already been "verified" and showed in the article here.-- - K a s h Talk | email 14:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Try to be WP:Civil for a change. I had discussed the matters many times with you, I told you to wait until we can expand the article however you decided not to. It doesn't matter what your intentions were. The point is that you shouldn't take such a POV for creating articles, and for reasons explained, this article is just POV. It's like having an article titled "Metal in Western countries" or "Metal in Christian countries" on an Asian wikipedia. -- - K a s h Talk | email 10:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put this up for deletion so I will comment if it is needed. However please do not make this any more than it is, AfD, there is nothing personal about it. -- - K a s h Talk | email 14:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: If it was a good compromise, I wouldn't be going through all this trouble for it. I think fans and the bands of Metal scene in those countries would be deeply offended to see it categorized as this. Their music is against Islam and their lyrics shout out it out clear that their country is not Islamic. There is just an Islamic rule in the country. -- - K a s h Talk | email 20:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote from keep to unsure, after reading the comment by 67.68.153.43 on the Talk:Heavy metal in Islamic countries#Delete (among other things). I understand that "Islamic countries" is an over-generalisation, and as Kash says, a rather western point of view. The situation of metal is different in different countries, as some have more or less free speech, a more or less authoritarian government, etc. The contents of the article could still be of use, but the title should be changed to not be so general.
The simplest thing to do is probably still to make a section about metal on the article for the music of each given country. IronChris | (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So, there is hardly any need for this particular article which seems to be on the borderline of POV or invented topics. The material should be lumped under the above two broader categories. Also generalising Islamic countries may not be appropriate, since different definitions of the word "Islamic countries" may be used, such as, "country with Islamic constitution", "country with Muslim population majority", "country with significant Islamic cultural influence", etc. Also the reason for heavy metal music ban may depend on non-genre related reasons. For example, playing loud music (which may be even pop or hip-hop) is illegal in many Western countries as well. Then music, irrespective of genre, might be illegal in several countries. Worth pointing out, not all non-Islamic countries - whatever that means - have huge thriving metal scenes. Examples include countries in Africa, India, etc., where loud music is socially unaccepted. So, the given article is generalising based on incorrect parameters. -- urnonav 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more option I'd support, move the article to a title you find less objectionable. Peter G Werner 20:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just listed this at WP:AFD as the final stage in the nomination process was apparently never completed.
 Thryduulf 23:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Cultural subject"?! What are you talking about?! -- - K a s h Talk | email 10:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm talking about this article. It seems self explanatory. The different reactions/approaches to music in different countries reflect culture. -- JJay 18:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
..Have you thought about addressing the reason of my nomination instead? Islamic countries do not share the same culture. Thats beside the point in any case, "Islamic countries" is a POV term! Do we have Metal in Christian countries? no? should we? does it reflect their culture?!! -- - K a s h Talk | email 10:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed your nom when I voted keep. I think the article is fine and should be expanded. If you disagree with the name then propose a different one. Otherwise, your other ideas, namely "Metal in Western countries" and "Metal in Christian countries", would both be fine with me if people want to work on those articles. -- JJay 21:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would be an interesting cultural subject would be to have an article that presents an overview of the social acceptance of heavy metal and its evolution in the past and that contrasts the different situations in various countries, some examples of which would be "Islamic countries". This would be 1) a more interesting article (the perception of heavy metal music and its followers has its importance elsewhere than just in "Islamic countries" and 2) it would be less offending. I agree with Kash that the government of a country does not reflect its culture. If someome then wants to make a detailed description of the heavy metal scene in a given country, they should do so on the article dedicated to that country's music. IronChris | (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: any suggestions for a better title? Spearhead 20:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Valid topic? Its original research, WP:POVFORK as well as the idea behind it being a POV. -- - K a s h Talk | email 21:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orrin Woodward[edit]

Non-notable Google-bomber and Amway something-or-other. Paul 00:33, 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.
More