< April 18 April 20 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 19

[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 02:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furpiled (webcomic)

[edit]

Non notable webcomic, found here. Alexa gives back a rank over 750,000. Google gives 30 links for the search term "Lion dog works" the name of the website it's hosted on. - Hahnchen 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mindmistress

[edit]

Random Comic Genesis webcomic, that you can see here. The only reason why this even appears on Google, is because the author of this webcomic also works at comixpedia. The site is not mentioned in the Alexa report for comixpedia, it is not a popular website. The "reviews" that I can see for this are just forum posts and amateurs. I can think of scores of game modifications who have had more coverage and popularity than this. - Hahnchen 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Thievery (webcomic)

[edit]

Goto Wikipedia's List of webcomics and take a look. Soon, Wikipedia will have more articles on webcomics than every other subject put together. A few more heads bashing at them could help, cause the inevitable "well, there's about a thousand more non notable webcomics here, why delete this one" is going to start cropping up if otherwise. This is a random comic genesis freehost webcomic, found here. Take a look at the website, now maybe have a look at Alexa and take a look on Google, but it ain't notable. - Hahnchen 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go Nintendo

[edit]

Is there a reason why it shouldn't be deleted? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: article was speedy deleted (CSD:G1 Patent nonsense)

Hendrix Nosepipe

[edit]

Completing AfD. Anon IP tried to create AfD entry with the comment "Hoax" but instead managed to blank the AfD page. Fan1967 00:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podunk U

[edit]

This webcomic is hosted on Angelfire, here. No notable sites are hosted on Angelfire anyway, but just to clarify why this article shouldn't exist on Wikipedia, the webcomic has been around for wow, 4 weeks now? Wikipedia, the number one source for webcomic promotion. No. - Hahnchen 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What kind of logic is that? If it has a wikipedia article it's notable? It dosn't work like that. It needs to have notability outside of wikipedia first. ---J.Smith 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kulta - Tromsdalen Kulturhus

[edit]

Norwegian article, not translated during two weeks at WP:PNT. Delete if untranslated at end of AfD, reconsider and possibly keep if a translation establishes notability. Kusma (討論) 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbstruck

[edit]

Appearing in your campus newspaper doesn't make your webcomic notable, I write for my college newspaper, and hell, I'm not notable and nor are the 2 comics that appear on it. You can see the webcomic in question here. This webcomic has an Alexa rank of 1 million and a Google search for "Grab bag comics", the site on which it's hosted gives back around 40 links. - Hahnchen 00:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travolta family

[edit]

If the family had produced more than one member as famous as John Travolta then maybe this would be a keep, but the rest of the family are just not really famous at all. Any relevant info can go on any remaining family member's articles. Arniep 00:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RealFoundations

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was Keep & Improve. Tawker 21:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth R.J.J. High School

[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: This isn't the place for this discussion. Sending to deletion review. - brenneman{L} 01:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African aesthetic

[edit]

Sending to AfD after out-of-process deletion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UTS Buddhist Meditation Society

[edit]

It's just some college club. -Bottesini 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Solution

[edit]

Non notable web site per WP:WEB rogerd 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as CSD A7. Harro5 07:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pascoe Vale Ice Fighters

[edit]

nn unverifiable suburban street gang, possibly a joke. Created by User:BlackVelvet and given the borderline vandalism/nonsense edits I don't trust anything in this article. The only references to this group were at Pascoe Vale, Victoria to plug this pointless group, which I have removed.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinist confederacy

[edit]

Original research. Google returns no relevant hits on Calvinist Confederacy or Calvinist Confederation (except those in the Wikipedia and its mirrors). The "foonotes" (which are not cited anywhere) were copied and redacted from John Calvin. Immediate (and failed) self-nom for Featured Article status by the anon creator does not lend credence to the ruse. --Flex 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem (disambiguation)

[edit]

None of the things which the page disambiguates between are named Eminem. This page was created shortly after "Emanem records" was taken off of the top of the Eminem article. To me, it seems like it's doing nothing but spamming a minor record label and making the Eminem page uglier. Josh 01:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treeplanting culture

[edit]

Delete. I'm concerned that this article may be unverifiable original research, and possibly non-notable as well. The article is two months old, and my request for sources on the talk page is one month old. --Allen 01:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 11:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 26 (disambiguation) and May 6 (disambiguation)

[edit]

If you're looking for August in the year 26, you should go to the year 26 and look for August there. If we really wanted to do this method universally, we'd have a ton of disambig pages to make. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Tawker as G7 - speedy requested by only editor. --Hetar 02:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William ifor jones

[edit]

My typing sucked today. Needed to uppercase last two names. duh. IconDaemon 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete and redirect. kingboyk 11:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Sticks

[edit]

Not notable - one similar hit on google --Bottesini 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilliput Net

[edit]

Not notable --Bottesini 02:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 09:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chindows

[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. Mailer Diablo 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped In Hell

[edit]

Album by artist Lloyd Banks; not listed on his web site or on Amazon. Forthcoming (WP is not a cystal ball) or just a mistake???? Thatcher131 02:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since that would be an illegal copyvio, and really hard to verify, I'd still say delete. We have no idea how popular this particular mixtape might be and no way of ever knowing unless it recieved news coverage as a notable bootleg. Thatcher131 03:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no vote on this. I agree with Montco that it is a mix tape distributed on various sites which may or may not be legal. Despite the above note, you can find it on Google. I don't see how WP:MUSIC helps here. The artist is clearly notable, this particular work may not be. If we do delete, you might take a look at The Big Withdrawl which is in a similar state. Lloyd Banks appears to have more mix tapes than official albums. -MrFizyx 16:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both. Mailer Diablo 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limitless magic and Limited Magic

[edit]

One-sentence boilerplate collection, makes no sense and is unreferenced--Zxcvbnm 02:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Limited Magic added to discussion by Fagstein 04:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 09:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DBL

[edit]

Non-notable abbreviation, asserts notability but I never heard of it and unreferenced, WP:NOT for things you make up in school one day--Zxcvbnm 02:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 09:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fulwood high soldiers

[edit]

Non notable gang with 30 people--Zxcvbnm 02:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as vandalism. Stifle (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Ubayd ibn Abdullaah al-Jaabiree

[edit]

The person is not notable, and the IP that made the article is a serious vandal. Just check his contribs- if admin would do something about it... --Bottesini 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 14:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linn-Mar High School

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 14:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westsail 32

[edit]

Originally prodded by me, and removed by page creator without comment. This is nothing more than a spamvertisement for a nn boat. The article doesn't even assert notability. Delete. --Hetar 03:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're outraged by this you shouldn't look at the edit histories of any other articles on AfD, you might pop a blood vessel. But this is probably a discussion for another time and place. Thatcher131 16:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are many articles that deserve an instant AfD — the point here is AfD because 30 minutes wasn't enough time for the author to demonstrate notability. — Johan the Ghost seance 17:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD discussion is your opportunity to prove notability. Personally, I would have contacted the creator first on what looks like a borderline issue, but I can't fault an instant AfD of something that looks like non-notable advertising. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 00:39 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 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

womack

[edit]

hoax

Are you sure? I'm getting some google hits on "Womack Tobacco" that seem relevant. Borisblue 04:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't, Google with womack tobacco -wikipedia seems to only return hits related to the family name Womack and similar (none seemingly related to the article). What search words are you using?--blue520 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And with "Womack Tobacco" -wikipedia, the only hits are for articles by Rocky Womack, a page written in Chinese and a book that seems related to Tobacco Culture (but not Womack).--blue520 05:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I saw a few pages with "Rocky Womack Tobacco" and I thought that might be it. I vote deleteBorisblue 05:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James matthew bonzo

[edit]

Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:PROFTEST and WP:BIO. --EdGl 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton Student Engineering Society

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete Ardenn 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engsoc

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete Ardenn 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KiloWatts

[edit]

Given the gigantic number of musicians already included on Wikipedia (who haven't had a #1 chart-topper), I don't think it's time to start trimming down now. Check the discogs page, the website, and other places. More than enough to deserve a wiki IMO. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kilowatts+music http://www.discogs.com/artist/KiloWatts


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster Girl

[edit]

The name a DJ gives his girlfriend on the air--in other words, WP:NN --rehpotsirhc 04:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not familiar with either of the characters, but apparently the dwarf has a website, an entry on IMDB, articles in Wired and The Smoking Gun and about 34,000 unique hits on Google. Have you read WP:NN? --rehpotsirhc 05:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering when whoever is in charge will finally delete this lie. 172.129.155.129 08:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 14:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Dimitrova

[edit]

vanity article for nn painter. 360 google hits, not all for the artist. Quotes and endorsements are all from art dealers trying to sell paintings. Fails WP:BIO pschemp | talk 04:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep and rewrite the article. Mailer Diablo 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Technology

[edit]

Being actively constructed by a user who indicated, in edit summary, that he/she was being instructed by the company to write the article, and the article is, despite cleanup (which the user at times reverts), too much of an advertising, calling the notability of the company into question. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that; I only kept the product lists because I didn't have anything else to put there. :) EVula 05:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 07:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Appears to be abandoned by its creator. As it stands, it's little more than a collection of links. I was tempted to speedy delete it, but figures that an AfD process is better, to see if improvements can be made. Delete as it stands. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to work on the article. Also, add Keep <<DONE>> below to make it more clear that you want to keep this article. There are hundreds of AfD articles to look at and although editors read the comments, they don't tend to look back and see if any specific person remembered to add Keep/Delete.—-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 14:17
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian shopping centres

[edit]

Not particularly encyclopedic list, if the info is really needed a category would do the job. As it is it's a redlink farm and has hardly been edited since creation a year ago. Delete kingboyk 04:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Moved Kotepho 07:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Quarter, Birmingham/Deleted history

[edit]

Could this possibly be merged into the talk page of the relevant article? This is metadata, and not encyclopedic. Appropriate Username 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensatio

[edit]

Article is written as an advertisement for a software package which appears non-notable; "sensatio" gets lots of google hits, but "sensatio binaural" gets 28 unique. 74 downloads at download.com, 60 at softpedia. and I'm not even gonna get into the alpha-waves thing. prod disputed, so... Delete. bikeable (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - crude vandalism. -- RHaworth 07:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginadon

[edit]

Originally proded by User:Polotet. When the prod was placed on the article, it was an exact copy of the T-Rex article. Since then the page creator has changed the article to go along with this hoax idea. I seriously doubt that Vaginadon is a legitimate scientific term, othwerise I would redirect. --Hetar 05:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 11:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western Engineering Students' Societies Team

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not-notable, doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Delete Ardenn 05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.
  2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.
  3. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
  4. Memorials. It may be sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives.
  5. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
  6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Relatively unimportant people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project.
  7. Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
  8. Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia.

Please explain how this site falls in these categorys. When in doubt, Keep--Nick Dillinger 09:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here? Is someone requesting this Wikipolicy be deleted? I don't get it. 23skidoo 15:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of the comment by Nick Dillinger for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Engineering Students' Societies Team, it just looks like it is a separate AfD.--blue520 15:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of these fit this page. ryanc 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The principles of Wikipedia are interpreted and put into place by consensus, and that consensus is firm on the undesirability of cruft. Cruft is certainly a bad thing in any encyclopedia striving to be accessible and useful. Now if you want random infinite collectors of trivial information, they already exist; they're called "search engines." They're about as useful as Wikipedia would be if we let in anything anyone wanted to post. RGTraynor 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm this with a source that is not its own web site? Thatcher131 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm what part? ryanc 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example confirm that thousands of engineers gather for the competition they sponsor, instead of a few dozen as might be the case with some student societies. Or that the competiton is viewed significantly by people that hire engineers (are there "scouts" or recruiters there?) Or that former members have gone on to become famous or notable in their post-graduation lives? You might call it the Theater intime test, in which a student run theater group at one college was kept because of its long history and the famous actors who got their start there. Thatcher131 06:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many student socities on wikipedia. That does not make it non-notable. ryanc 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand my reasoning: it is a student society with no evidence of notability. 195.194.4.65 15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)(forgot I wasn't logged in) Sliggy 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[From CFES website] and [WEC 2007] and [WESST] itself. ryanc 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just followed those links, and see nothing more than that WESST and this competition exists, which I don't think anyone doubted. Evidence of notability I've yet to see. RGTraynor 19:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect per ((R from other capitalisation)), reasonable search term. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xboard

[edit]

Non-notable bulletin board (see WP:WEB, and it's not on the first couple of pages of a google for xboard), Delete (or make it a redirect to XBoard. Polotet 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inqlabi

[edit]

Non notable. The only information I can find for this on Google is the exact text that has been pasted into Wikipedia. The Inqlabi development aid is an identical copy of this. Appropriate Username 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as the page is an advertisement. --soUmyaSch 06:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 14:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian-Croatian Soccer Tournament

[edit]

An annual amateur football (soccer) tournament which is for weekend teams, which appears to be restricted to one ethnic group in Australia - which would cover no more than 1% of the population? Delete.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet scams

[edit]

This information already exists on the page Internet fraud, and I suggest this be deleted and/or merged. Appropriate Username 06:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Fagstein has done what needed to be done, can we get a Speedy Close here? Fan1967 02:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was recreation of previously deleted content -> speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of the Members

[edit]

A stupid, though elaborate joke. There is absolutely no real church of this name, its all ridiculous. Not even funny, so I don't know why someone would put this much work into this. Kilter 06:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. HappyCamper 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McMahonism

[edit]

This article serves no useful purpose. Only specific significant professional wreslting angles deserve their own page, and this isn't one of them

Or maybe that Wikipedia has no patience for nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 03:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to create your own wrestling wiki. Fagstein 06:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is exclusive to certain topics now? Genocidal 08:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalistroadster — My delete vote stands, but nobody ever said that McMahonism is anything but kayfabe (i.e., a "religion" that's part of a wrestling angle); I think that's what this article's author was attempting to imply. If you're implying that some naive reader may interpret McMahonism as legit, then you're mistaken [[Briguy52748 19:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)]].[reply]
Comment -- Err ... "valid religion" and "kayfabe" in the same sentence? We most certainly do not, else any one of us could promulgate a "religion," and on the strength of its validity (surely more so than something WWE writers made up for a storyline) require Wikipedia to host an article on it. Nothankew. RGTraynor 15:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Shepherd

[edit]

complete hoax, total crap, whatever you want to call it. Google doesn't know this guy; neither does Amazon. He listed his age as 21 in a date article. Rklawton 06:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WiSPA - Websetters' Personal Assistant

[edit]

non-notable advertisement-cruft — Scm83x hook 'em 07:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 07:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metallicamate

[edit]

Subject is not notable. Google search[16] produces a mere 13 hits on four different rather obscure websites. The Big Day Out forum which is mentioned in the article is in itself unnoteworthy, and has at most a handful of sites linking to it. No news mention as far as I could tell. Jens Nielsen 07:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that wikipedia has a global audience, and ought not have everything about local affairs in it. See the official wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Notability (people). He's not a major local (political) figure as I can determine, has received no significant (any?) press coverage, though he may, as your argue have been achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. Have a good look at the criteria. It's not my decision to delete it, others will have to respond too. Meanwhile, work on improving the article as much as you can. If you make it a well worked-out article in conformity with wikipedia norms (including verifiability), there's a good chance it won't be deleted even if sub-notable. Good luck!

Jens Nielsen 08:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that he is a blogger, the point is that in Australian music he is somewhat of an internet phenomena, something that is still referenced and discussed daily, and is a story that many people still need explained to them very often. You're completely ignoring the wider circumstances around this article - it's not simply a registered user on a forum, and to trivialise it down to that is just plain ignorant. It's like saying "all your base" is just the opening sequence of some obscure game. Esquared au 00:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other people have addressed the point: that if this guy was actually any sort of Internet phenomenon, he would have generated Google hits. Some G-hits. Any G-hits. And not just a couple posts from four forums, one of which is shut down, one of which pulls an Alexa ranking of over five million, one of which pulls a mere 300K+. But if you have any evidence of notability, feel free to bring it out! RGTraynor 07:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel B. Wallace

[edit]

Fails to meet WP:BIO. Possible vanity with no assertion of notablity. Arbusto 08:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? How is that a well known work? The critieria as follows:
Comment. "No proof?" Google it for yourself and follow some of the many, many review links and the ones referencing its use in the classroom. I appreciate that you're trying to defend your AfD nomination, but I'm sure we can all agree that we're more interested in dispassionate research of whether or not an article meets the criteria. RGTraynor 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having a book listed and reviewed at Amazon is not a big deal nor does it prove it is a well-known or high quality academic work. 500 google hits is not very many for a "well known" work. How about any peer reviews of his book? Reviews by experts in the linguistics field? Arbusto 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I take it interest in going through the evidence yourself? Alright. First off, that's 500 unique G-hits; the grand total Google hits is actually over 32,500. Here's the ones from a directed search of .edu sites alone [20]. RGTraynor 06:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep 500 unique hits. The link you supplied has the first two results from the seminary he graduated from and later taught at. Arbusto 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Third and fourth, anyway. What's your point? That the website with the most traffic about an academic is the one at the seminary at which he taught? I doubt there are many professors about whom that couldn't be said. RGTraynor 19:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by JesseW as an attack page.-Polotet 19:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Reeve jokes

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a joke book; there is a brief mention of this fad in the Christopher Reeve article, but it's not like we need a whole list of these jokes. — sjorford (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Unionism

[edit]

There are no citations and furthermore I cannot find any anywhere on the web. I believe this article to be original research which is against wikipedia's rules. The old article (Which is very clearly original research) can be found here http://www.answers.com/topic/world-unionism it is my opinion that the author simply changed the article around to make it look as though the research is not original. PrettyMuchBryce 09:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Elf-friend. Closing only. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Tham

[edit]

I appreciate that the original author added some citations after I tagged this entry with 'prod' last week. Reviewing the evidence, though, I still think this is a vanity page. (1) googling for "david tham" and nanoknowledge turns up nothing but this page, a similar promotional page at everything2, and a corporate bio that cites the wikipedia page, (2) a global periodicals search in Nexis for "david tham" and nanoknowledge turns up ZERO hits, and (3) an ABI/INFORM search of academic literature for the same search string also turns up ZERO hits. I wish Tham good luck with his consulting business, but I don't see that Wikipedia should be part of his advertising platform. Uucp 14:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the citations are to his own original research or seminar presentations. Thatcher131 16:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fasthosts

[edit]

Another non-notable dotcom registrar. Delete Ardenn 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. That's not a bad Alexa ranking by any means, but that's like saying the outfit that makes the silicon for a number of computers is "notable," a word a lot of Wikipedia editors seem to feel is synonymous with "ubiquitous." Everyone's site is hosted by someone. I'd recommend taking a peek at WP:CORP. RGTraynor 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Shorts Day

[edit]

Does not contain quality, or enough, encyclopedic content. The page is also an orphan. At best, it should be merged with the article, University of Calgary. Arch26 16:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was moot - speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nels lindahl

[edit]

Contested speedy candidate. Autobiography of a PhD student who's primary claim to fame is the publication of book through a well-known vanity press publisher. Delete as per WP:V unless sources that meet the guidelines listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources are provided. Court Jester 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep - will put a notice for merging on the article. HappyCamper 16:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best friend

[edit]

This is essentially a dictionary definition with some speculation added. There's nothing here that shouldn't properly be in the Friend article. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galinda Hobsquatch

[edit]

Non notable bio. No importance asserted, nor any references provided. No google hits. I put a speedy del tag on it but was promptly removed by creator. soUmyaSch 16:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in the process of making it... Sorry, school is making it slow.

  • Comment: You can't prove a negative. That aside, it is not our responsibility to demonstrate that no one has ever heard of this person (although no one ever has), it is the responsibility of the article's creators to give verifiable evidence of her notability. Wikipedia:Verifiability RGTraynor 13:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE

Juan Manuel Abras

[edit]

Non-notable composer/conductor. This page has been nominated for deletion once before and the result was DELETE (after someone attempted to use sockpuppets to vote in favor of Keep). That was in 2005 -- why is this article still here? Grover cleveland 16:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for this article is also full of sockpuppets. Grover cleveland 16:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just too much sock-puppetry Dlyons493 Talk 23:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those pages tell us he's a postgrad student. He's taken lots of universty courses (surprise). He's studied with some notable professors, but that doesn't make him notable. He's directed some ensembles that are anonymous (in the English link) or that no-one has heard of (second link). He is a member of a composers' assocation (no evidence that any notability is required to become a member). He's founded lots of groups (big deal). As a composer, has his music been performed by musicians who are themselves notable? Has it been published by a major music publishing company? As a conductor, has he conducted a notable orchestra or ensemble? Are any recordings of his conducting or compositions available commercially? Grover cleveland 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All comments by Grover cleveland are erroneous and false. Abras is not a postgraduate student anymore (besides, you can achieve notability even while being a student). Not everybody is accepted -as Abras was- to take university courses at the prestigious institutions he attended (where legends like Karajan, Abbado, and Mehta, for instance, studied too: University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna, Austria, just for naming one). The ensembles Abras conducted (I checked them one by one) are not anonymous at all; they are simply not listed in this article. The Argentine Composers Association -Abras is a member of that institution- was founded in 1915 as "National Society of Music" and is one of the oldest and most prestigious composers associations of Latin America (of course, not everybody is accepted for becoming a member). Some of Abras scroes and CDs are, indeed available commercially (this was checked too). Abras was designated conductor of two of first-class Argentine Orchestras (this was verified too). Conclusion: all comments by Grover cleveland may be product of the evil, non authoritative, jealous and envious mind of, maybe, a frustrated musician that possibly doesn't even know how to read a music score. Music Master
Previous comment was from a Sockpuppet? Grover cleveland 19:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC) False statement by Grover cleveland. A real Sockpuppet must not be confused with a newcomer Wikipedian comment, like in this case. --Music Master 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Music Master first edit in Wikipedia was 20 April 2006 [32]. Probably a Sockpuppet. Grover cleveland 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC) False statement by Grover cleveland. A real Sockpuppet must not be confused with a newcomer Wikipedian comment, like in this case. --Music Master 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Monitory first edit on Wikipedia 20 April 2006 [33]. Probably a Sockpuppet. Grover cleveland 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC) False statement by Grover cleveland. A real Sockpuppet must not be confused with a newcomer Wikipedian comment, like in this case. --Music Master 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bororomir Wins first edit on Wikipedia was 20 April 2006 [34]. Probably a Sockpuppet. Grover cleveland 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC) False statement by Grover cleveland. A real Sockpuppet must not be confused with a newcomer Wikipedian comment, like in this case. --Music Master 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AbsolutDan you must pay more attention to what you write: the membership detail was an answer to an envious comment by Grover cleveland. Notability is well proved by authoritative and specialized sources. Pay more attention before writing and do not talk about you don't know, like in this case. Thanks. Music Master
Where? Please cite and I'll be happy to take a look --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know how to search the web, you can find some useful tutorials here: http://yahooligans.yahoo.com I hope you find them useful. Regards, Music Master
Sandonar first edit on Wikipedia was 21 April 2006 [35]. Probably a Sockpuppet. Grover cleveland 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karate Kid first edit on Wikipedia was 21 April 2006 [36]. Probably a Sockpuppet. Grover cleveland 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC) False statement by Grover cleveland. A real Sockpuppet must not be confused with a newcomer Wikipedian comment, like in this case. --Music Master 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Koril first edit on Wikipedia was 21 April 2006 [37]. Probably a Sockpuppet. Grover cleveland 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC) False statement by Grover cleveland. A real Sockpuppet must not be confused with a newcomer Wikipedian comment, like in this case. --Music Master 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perelli: please see Wikipedia:No legal threats for the best course of action to take in handling disputes. --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC) AbsolutDan: even if your help is more than appreciated, you must know that Wikipedia cannot be above international legislation nor be against the defense of the world established Human Rights. Also, do not attempt to deny the universal right to take a legal action. Please avoid future interventions without a proper knowledge of Law. --Music Master 22:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't allow legal threats here. Any more and you and your army of socks will be blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC) I would appreciate if you could avoid personal attacks against me. Please, avoid any kind of threats against me or other users. Otherwise, you will be denounced too. --Music Master 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Music Master, you have made many personal attacks. You have broken the laws regarding libel. Go read WP:NPA immediately. What the hell are you talking about human rights and international law? No one has the RIGHT to an article here. Also, this isn't a vote. 1 edit newcomers and anon editors don't get a sway here. Their comments are taken with very little weight. Stop making socks, OR stop defending them. If your not involved you have no idea if they are a sock or not. Oh yeah, threaten me legally. Call me evil. I dare you. You’re looking at a fast ban if you don't tone it down. ---J.Smith 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC) I would appreciate if you could avoid personal attacks against me. Please, avoid any kind of threat against me or any other user. Please, avoid offensive language. Otherwise, you will be denounced too, despite your age or any other inimputability circumstance that may arise. --Music Master 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perelli: you may want to visit: http://www.amnestyusa.org and http://www.unhchr.ch --Music Master 22:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lack_of_facts_no_hindrance_to_speculation_about_Google,_Wikipedia http://www.openwyre.com/2006/03/_wikipedia_the_.html http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2005/12/20/wikipedia_vs_britannica_apples_vs_oranges

Therefore, I encourage them not to act by following subjective "favors", but to act according to Wikipedia policies and international conventions. --Music Master 23:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've speedied this one. Continuing this "debate" is simply daft. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acornrack

[edit]

Non-notable website. Also poorly written, reads like an advertisement. Joey Roe talk/contrib 17:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Coyne

[edit]

Non-notable. Low google hits.Hasn't dones anything particularly noteworthy.Vanity/advertising for his websites and podcasts. The JPS 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, keeping. Tawker 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every Three Weekly

[edit]

Not notable --Bottesini 17:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 18:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bee Well Company

[edit]

Non-notable company. 93 google hits for "BeeWell company", of which 57 come from their own website. A look at the twelve relevant Google hits outside of their own website definitively shows that this company matches none of the relevant notability criteria. — Hillel 17:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mike's reasoning at the end is hardly valid, but Fagstein and MrFizyx have provided reasonable arguments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Mao

[edit]

This is a Vanity Page. The only source cited is the subject's blog. Geekera 17:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Many of the keep voters also indicated dissatisfaction with the article as it now is, since it was little more than a list of external links. However, an encyclopedic article could be written on this topic, so I am deleting without prejudice against an improved article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University television

[edit]

Article serves only as a repository of external links. Haakon 17:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Tawker 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XBWL

[edit]

Another none notable e-wrestling federation, where users make fantasy stories up about their fantasy wrestlers. Also seems like vanity after having a quick read with quotes such as "Michael Wilkins - That would be me! Yay!". Englishrose 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source - http://www.angelfire.com/wrestling3/xbwl - The XBWL tribute page.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mangojuice provided the best argument for deletion (be aware that just saying "not notable" will not carry much weight when faced with a good argument for inclusion). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BeRoTracker

[edit]

Non-notable tracker program. Still a stub article. Doesn't seem to pass the proposed WP:SOFT criteria. Vossanova 17:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Note that the sole author of this article has also subsequently requested that it be deleted here. HappyCamper 16:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franchette Dizon

[edit]

Not notable --Bottesini 17:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will follow what she said. Obviously you guys don't respect other people. I thought Wikipedia is a free place. You should stop letting people contribute what they can. Because you guys are not fair. --Lmae 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've always been bemused at the widespread belief that the meaning of the word "fair" is "letting me get my own way." Wikipedia isn't a "free place," per se -- it is a private encyclopedia with rules and guidelines for inclusion, and articles about people need to satisfy those criteria to be considered worthy of inclusion. We're not here to "respect other people," whatever that means. We're here to respect Wikipedia's rules. Take a look over WP:BIO for the criteria that apply in this instance. RGTraynor 14:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead and delete it already. Don't wait for five days anymore. --Lmae 03:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. HappyCamper 17:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moonfish (audio tracker)

[edit]

Article does not assert notability. Doesn't seem to meet the proposed WP:SOFT criteria. Vossanova 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article ThoughtFarmer. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floor Two, Mardon Hall

[edit]

patent nonsense, attempts to redirect and prod by various editors have been reverted by page author, who clearly spends way too much time on this instead of completing his studies and making his parents proud MNewnham 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave us alone!!! Oh come on, its just a bit of fun, nothing to get too worked up about. I apoloise for any upsets i have caused but really this is a touch pedantic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hugh Minnock (talk • contribs) .

This page is an excellent page showing the bond between a group of people, so should be left alone, not slated. It shows how good the floor is and how united the people on the floor are so i say leave it be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chetters (talk • contribs) . This is the user's first edit. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wingfield

[edit]

Prod failed. Delete as non-notable, only 15 google hits Joelito 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. HappyCamper 17:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skank

[edit]

This is an overgrown dictionary definition, and can't be anything but. See WP:WINAD. Adding etymology and usage examples does not make it an encyclopedia entry. Adding those insidious "pop culture references" would not make it an encyclopedia entry. Creating a List of notable skanks (1. Paris Hilton, 2. Britney Spears...) would not make this an encyclopedia entry. The only thing that would make this an encyclopedia entry is a healthy dose of denial, Wikipedia style, and so I bring it here. Brian G. Crawford 19:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 07:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Undergraduate Society of the University of British Columbia

[edit]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Andrewjuren(talk) 01:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails to show why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Non-notable. Delete Ardenn 19:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however there are many stunts which may be overlooked. Like stealing the speaker's chair from parliament in Victoria BC. ryanc 19:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The UBC article is already criticized as being too long and full of random crap. I don't think the EUS can be added to it without reducing the quality of both articles. TastyCakes 17:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is WINFTMUISOD even being mentioned? The second paragraph of that page, titled "This page in a nutshell", states "Resist the temptation to write about the new, great thing you and/or your friends just thought up." How does this apply here - and why are we even wasting time on it? Ckatz 16:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. HappyCamper 18:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Fleming

[edit]

Previously marked for speedy but that was rejected. Subject, and likely author, wants it deleted. Delete AlistairMcMillan 20:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Please note that about half of the pages that link to this article are referring to other people called John Fleming. AlistairMcMillan 20:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Another reason for this page to be deleted would be WP:VAIN. AlistairMcMillan 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:John Fleming. Aside from minor style edits John would appear to be the only editor. AlistairMcMillan 20:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, it seems it would meet the criteria for speedy, but not regular AfD. WP:VAIN might apply, but it seems he has done a decent job of establishing minor notability, which can be used as an argument to override vanity. OK, I'm lost. No idea what rules apply here. Fan1967 21:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm flip-flopping on this. After exposure to too many other recent vanity and near-vanity pages I have to say this article looks much much much better. This person actually did things (as opposed to, say, someone whose notability is nearly solely over having laid a suit over the route of a road). Shenme 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UTC is Coordinated Universal Time, which most of us know as GMT. Fan1967 00:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. William O. (Bud) Reeves

[edit]

Non-notable preacher, it seems. A few hits on google, but I couldn't find much. --BillC 20:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

201 (number)

[edit]

Non-notable number, previously prodded, deprodded and reprodded so it has to be AfD. Only claim to fame is that its the first non-notable number in wikipedia which violates a policy on avoiding self reference. This could set a dangerious precident as the Interesting number paradox could be applied to make all numbers notable. Salix alba (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shen sonic

[edit]

nn game, prod removed without comment Rory096(block) 20:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 21:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Film Institute list of the 50 films you should see by the age of 14

[edit]

copyvio; these judgment based lists are the copyright of their publishers -- we have deleted many of these sorts from the American Film Institute, now the British Film Institute list has to be respected as well Carlossuarez46 20:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Will (E@) T 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995

[edit]

This survived an AfD in August last year, but WP has changed the policy on whether judgment-based lists are copyvio; I am resubmitting it here. I also think it is POV and subjective, but that was laid to rest in August. Carlossuarez46 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating:[reply]

for the same reasons. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Barno and Fagstein make an excellent point. The list is notable if and only if it is in itself a news event, and covered by other sources. So let's see some sources:
* Jolie sizzles atop 'FHM' sexiest list USA Today
* Britney dropped from 'Sexiest' list ITV
* Britney loses place on Sexiest Women list RTE.ie
* Britney Spears loses sex appeal FemaleFirst.co.uk
* Yahoo UK - repeats the list, with links to Yahoo image searches
* FHM's "100 Sexiest Women in the World" AceShowBiz.com
* FHM Readers Name Scarlett Johansson World's Sexiest Woman; Actress Tops Voting in FHM's 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2006 Readers' Poll Business Wire
* Beyonce Among FHM's 100 Sexiest Women Beyonce, Kelly Clarkson, Mariah make sexiest women list. Net Music Countdown
* Top 100 Sexiest Women and How Many Have Tattoos
* Jenna on FHM Sexiest List 7th Year in a Row Adult Industry News
And there are hundreds of others. About 1,000,000 hits on Google for FHM 100 list. You'll also notice most are for the placement of one specific entry on one specific list, and for how it differs from last year's list - clearly each individual list is being reported on, not just the idea that "FHM has such a list every year". AnonEMouse 13:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Merge into FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World.Fagstein 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment Yahoo UK repeats the list, with links to Yahoo image searches. They clearly don't think it's a copyvio, and they've got better lawyers than we are. AnonEMouse 13:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep, with a strong inclination towards a Merge. HappyCamper 18:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Brooklyn College B.A.-M.D. Program

[edit]

Contested PROD. The subject, a specific program of study at a specific university, is non-notable; hence delete. Joe 20:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn College's B.A.-M.D. is a notable program at the City University of New York. It receives 500 applications a year from some of the New York Tri-state Areas brightest students, of these, it only accepts 17. B.A.-M.D. is also a pipeline program that the princeton review mentions in its guide of medical schools under SUNY downstate, the major state medical school of NY and the only state school in NYC. Lastly, AAMC cites it under its book of medical schools with BA/MD programs. keep Mrbabymonkey


well metropolitan90, ASK AND THOU SHALT RECEIVE. From U Penn: The Huntsman Program in International Studies and Business
The Jerome Fisher Program in Management and Technology
Nursing and Healthcare Management
and lastly, From Yale: Directed Studies Although the directed studies program is not joint-degree, it is also a "selective...study program."
After those have also been put up for deletion, I think it would be prudent if we found some books on selective studies programs and burned them. Mrbabymonkey

*Keep Schools should not be nominated. CalJW 02:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forged signature This vote and the one below were made in the same edit at the same time by IP 172.134.137.77 - The sockpuppets are truly out tonight. CalJW has voted in some AFDs tonight. Not this one. It is fact a direct quote of his vote in the AfD for Williamsville North High School. - Fan1967 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, False accusation. Caljws IP is not 172.134.137.77. ALthough, it may be a direct quote from the williamsville entry, Caljws page shows him to be a reputed contributor to wikipedia. He's probably just being consistent. Mrbabymonkey
That's exactly the point, CalJW's IP is not 172.134.137.77. User:CalJW has not submitted any kind of vote or comment to this particular AfD discussion, as can be seen by viewing the history page for this section, or Special:Contributions/CalJW. The purported vote that appears to come from User:CalJW was actually submitted by the anonymous User:172.134.137.77 as can be seen here. --Metropolitan90 05:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only do you appear really desperate, but you should at least be aware that every contribution is logged in the history, which clearly shows that CalJW never posted anything in this discussion. Fan1967 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 21:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsville North High School

[edit]

Prodded, prod deleted with no reason other than "sufficient notability" in the edit summary. The school is not notable. It is just another high school. The article has been around for a little while, so I imagine that if there were notability, someone would have written it by now. Jesuschex 20:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a verifiable school. For great justice. 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it's a school, and it exists? So any school that exists is notable? Jesuschex 00:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, notability is not part of deletion policy. For great justice. 05:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Boat building. Tawker 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catamaran Construction (second nomination)

[edit]

After reviewing the article and its previous "nomination" which was wrongly ended by an administrator after not reaching a consensus, this article must be deleted. It is a copy of the content at Boat Building Process (which needs to be merged) and reads like an advertisement.--Zxcvbnm 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Tawker as ((nn-club)). Stifle (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prinx United

[edit]

No sign of notability, club article created by User:Chupu who has played for the club himself. Zero Google hits outside of the Wikipedia+mirrors servers. – Elisson • Talk 21:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boludos United

[edit]

No sign of notability, club article created by User:Chupu who has played for the club himself. Zero Google hits outside of the Wikipedia+mirrors servers. – Elisson • Talk 21:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was G7 Speedy. Tawker 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth games.net

[edit]

Non-notable website. Creator of article effectively admits it is an advert. -- RHaworth 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Bulldogs

[edit]

blatant spam Trysha (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Zoe. Coredesat talk 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Bulldogs

[edit]

as above, the spammer is back Trysha (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material. Page is now protected. Pepsidrinka 22:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avila (Sexiest Woman Alive, Best, Girlfriend Evaaaar!!11!!!, Nate's Heart, and Dream Come True)

[edit]

nn bio, reads like advertisement, wholly unencyclopedic tone. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, withdrawn by nominator. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zendik farm

[edit]

Delete Non-notable religious organization. No verifiable sources for article. Speedy delete tag and prod notice were removed by the original author without comment. Gwernol 22:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Following updates to the article, I agree that notablity has been established and the article should be kept. Gwernol 02:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The removal of the speedy remove tag was accidental. This religious organization is notable. It has existed for 33 years making it one of the longest lasting community of its type.

Other intentional communities such as Twin oaks and Acorn community are listed in Wikipedia.

It is the largest cult with a self-created religion in the United States. Because of the nature of the organization, the best existing citation is the website : http://zendik.org/ I have also added the following web sites as citations: Please let me know if there is more information needed to prove the significance of this organization.

2) emeraldimajia.livejournal.com - An ex-Zendiks members recovery and re-adjustment to everyday life"

3) http://www.sare.org/sanet-mg/archives/html-home/3-html/0378.html A discussion by ex-members of Zendik.

4)Just who are these Zendiks? by Joe Tarr http://www.metropulse.com/dir_zine/dir_2001/1122/t_gamut.html e April 19 2006 (UTC)

5)http://psychevanhetfolk.homestead.com/Zendik.html "Wulf Zendik and his Zendik Farm.

6)http://www.utexas.edu/academic/uip/research/docstuds/coll/greenleaf.html "A dream, a plan, a Zendik.

7 )http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/cover/2005/cover1104.html Washington City Paper Cover Story: Who Are These People?

(This unsigned comment contributed by Missyrelm) 

  Actually, it was in the Washington Post, see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2006/01/21/GA2006012101731_index_frames.htm?startat=1


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Empire

[edit]

This amateur and childish version of Polish history has no redeeming features. The title is all wrong, as Poland was never a formal empire. The material is already covered in History of Poland. The rambling article is written in a manner that can only be called unsophisticated, to put it mildly. Section titles are so ridiculous, they are actually humorous. There are obvious copyvio problems. Some of the content might, after considerable rewriting, be moved into the History of Poland article, but quite frankly I do not think that is worth the trouble. Balcer 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see nothing wrong with a redirect to History of Poland or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, for example. Fluit 02:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 07:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Wine & More

[edit]

looks like advertisement to me Yoghurt 23:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - would likely have been an speedy anyways (hence the delete w/ only 3 voters). Tawker 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GIPE

[edit]

Neologism, "Great Idea Poorly Executed" googles but does not seem to be notable or in wide use; "GIPE" does not verify. Tagged for Prod, tag removed by original contributor without editing or comment. Accurizer 23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oncotype

[edit]

Unlikely to be notable, appears to be WP:VSCA. If kept, split and disambig. Stifle (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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