< April 1	April 3 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. G1, A1, A7, take your pick. Royboycrashfan 01:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Donaghy[edit]

Nominated by IP, I'm just picking up where they left off. I have tagged this as a speedy. Royboycrashfan 00:12, 2 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kattappuram[edit]

Delete, non-notable journalist. 51 hits on Google. Royboycrashfan 00:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fishhead64 01:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, very NN --Deville (Talk) 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. Mikker ^(...) 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable. Jude (talk,contribs, email) 05:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see one hit for a google search for Kattappuram + journalist. Clearly he's not the most notable user of this name.-Mr Adequate 08:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. only 51 hits, but there's a lot of him on material sources. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mentioned in quite a number of sources. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 16:49, 2 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 move to book safe. -- King of Hearts ^talk 01:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow book[edit]

Self-nom, as part of my project to weed out articles I created with made-up names for real things. There really are such things, of course, but the term itself is a neologism and should probably be done away with. -Litefantastic 01:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy G7. Royboycrashfan 01:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Still, delete. Royboycrashfan 01:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Fishhead64 01:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC) My bad - forgot to check. Fishhead64 02:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, or move to real name if there is no article. No speedy, there have been several other contributors. (G7 requires that the author be the sole contributor.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to book safe. Quite notable, and a decent article. Hollow book gets 26,400 google hits, but book safe gets 118,000, as well as various sponsored links. -LtNOWIS 02:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as per LtNOWIS. Notable enough item - the curent name can probably be kept as a redirect, it's a fairly sensible search possibility. Grutness...wha? 03:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and keep as a redirect per Grutness. JoshuaZ 03:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to book safe and keep as a redirect per Grutness. --Terence Ong 05:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there isn't a book safe article to redirect to. --Soumyasch 05:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A redirect and a move are different things. Please see WP:MOVE and WP:R --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As per the above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely needs cleanup, but not deletion. Move to "Book safe" as above.-Mr Adequate 09:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and cleanup per Mr Adequate. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:37, 2 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Cochran[edit]

Non-notable/vanity KHM03 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn bio. 49 Google hits. Royboycrashfan 01:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn/vanity. dbtfz^talk 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fishhead64 02:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Montco 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and while were at it is the organization he is associated with CrossLeft notable at all? Google hits are not favorable. JoshuaZ 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn + vanity. Mikker ^(...) 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominations, not really notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Being a Christian minister is not enough notability for a Wikipedia article.
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just a self-article. Weatherman90 16:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please Delete Though I am truly flattered to be on Wikipedia, I would rather it be due to an honest popularity of my sermons and writings and not by a friend with good intentions. My apologies to Wikipedia. Jc123 19:08, 2 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. bainer (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Shea[edit]

Non notable guitare player — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.130.57 (talk • contribs)

• Keep, band he is a member of is notable per WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 01:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable. Fishhead64 02:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable band member. --Terence Ong 05:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge. Just one senetence, merge with the band. --MaNeMeBasat 07:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the band, as per User:MaNeMeBasat Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect entry to the band. One sentence is not enough.-Mr Adequate 09:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, not enough for article. MaxSem 11:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now, with possibility for expansion later. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for the time being. - Rynne 14:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but add stub tags, and more info if possible. Weatherman90 16:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Look What I Did until more of note can be said about him. dbtfz^talk 22:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The band article should probably be deleted too. Jonas Silk 14:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable guitar player from an obscure band. RGTraynor 19:01, 3 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, per vanity bio _→AzaToth 08:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Maalouf[edit]

false bio/vanity, the only google hits found for this name are for a teenager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximusveritas (talk • contribs)

• Delete, apparent hoax. Not even wikified. Royboycrashfan 01:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. His name is very similar to a Brazilian politician's name, Paulo Maluf. It is most likely a hoax. Carioca 02:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree - Google search indicates that this is clearly a hoax. Fishhead64 02:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 05:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - Hoax. Paste the phone number into Google that Resavednineteen, the article's author, is vandalising with. This article may even require speedy deletion, along with the user account - if anyone knows procedure. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 07:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , hoax, as per all of the above. Quick google proves it. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article has been deleted by one of the admins, so can another admin please close the discussion, thanks. --Arnzy (Talk) 08:36, 2 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MangoSoft[edit]

Delete, non-notable software company. 214 Google hits, which I believe is low for a software company. Royboycrashfan 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fishhead64 02:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was an entry from their 12/31/05 SEC report. "We have significantly modified our operations and reduced our work force on four separate occasions since April 2001. We currently have one (1) employee, working in a general and administrative capacity. We outsource the management of our billable services infrastructure, software code base, customer support and reseller channel management to Built Right Networks for approximately $21,000 per month. They barely exist as a company.Montco 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn compoany, fails WP:CORP, WP:SOFTWARE. --Terence Ong 05:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 16:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per what's already been mentioned. --Wizardman 21:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Bobak 20:52, 6 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. --bainer (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Wolf[edit]

This was deleted speedily but I am recreating it and placing it up for deletion Mineralè 02:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Mineralè 02:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable blogger. — Apr. 2, '06 [02:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
  • Comment: If he had not been in a legal fight with the FBI I would have agreed, but please look at the cbs article and the bay article. Not to mention the press release. Mineralè 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable blog fails WP:WEB--Dakota ~ ° 02:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn bio. Royboycrashfan 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - before voting please read this article: http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2006/03/30/n/HeadlineNews/GRAND-JURY-SUBPOENA/resources_bcn_html
  • I read the link... Bay Area police reports, what of it? — Apr. 2, '06 [03:46] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Comment I'm not voting yet. Asking: Google test? How notable is this person? DyslexicEditor 04:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This guy is essentially fighting a subpoena from the fbi to release footage. He is not notable but his "fight" is. His case has been picked up by the National Lawyers Guild pro bono. Essentially the fight is: is a "blogger" considered a reporter? If yes then the law stipulates that he does not have to release the footage under the Reporter Shield Law. Mineralè 06:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You asked for google, here it is 63,300 for "Joshua Wolf", but the top hits clearly refer to people named "Joshua Wolf Shenk" and "Joshua Wolf Coleman", so I refined the search further to avoid false positives: 942 for "Joshua Wolf" +blog, but then I notice Mr. "Wolf Shenk" also happens to be a blogger and appears at the top of this list also, hence step 3, eliminating the non-applicable surnames: 51 for "Joshua Wolf" +blog -shenk -coleman. Non-notable. — Apr. 2, '06 [17:32] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
    • Personally, I think then the measure is: Has this person been mentioned on television and how much? DyslexicEditor 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you realize how many people, including myself, don't watch television? — Apr. 2, '06 [18:14] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 06:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it does not warrant its own article (and I don't see anyone else convinced it is), the information belongs somewhere on wikipedia. DyslexicEditor 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Merge somewhere. Maybe something on law or blogs. DyslexicEditor 23:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. This has the potential to be a significant free-expression case, in which case the principal litigant is notable, but the case is still at a very early stage, and there has not been wide public or media notice, and the case may be settled in a manner that does not provide case law. On balance I'd keep it and improve the article. MCB 06:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "potential" =/= "encyclopedic". --Calton | Talk 09:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely weak keep. He does seem to be vaguely notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote to Delete. A bit too vague. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Getting mentioned by Boing Boing doesn't make you famous, notable, or encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 09:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about CBS? Or getting picked up by the National Lawyers Guild? Mineralè 15:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. Nope. Any other questions? --Calton | Talk 08:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More wikinews than wikipedia, Once it's settled, and if the result is notable, then yes, but until then I am somewhat concerned about an article about an ongoing court case. Cases such as Google_and_privacy_issues are a different scale, where a wiki article may not make difference, but a case regarding one person where the sources would be more limited is a different matter. MartinRe 16:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, he's notable for involvement in one event, hence the event should have a page (if notable enough in its own right) and he should be mentioned there. There is no assertion here that the individual is notable for excellence or achievement in his field. Deizio 16:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MCB. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only one source is from verifiable media, and that just 3 days ago. WP is not a crystal ball; this could be the defining case for bloggers as journalist or Wolf could quietly cave. If this case does turn out to be pivotal, then recreate. Thatcher131 00:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 'If' this fellow becomes notable, 'then' an article is warranted about him. One isn't warranted on the premise that he might become notable in the future. RGTraynor 19:17, 3 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Rasu and Josiah[edit]

Vanity piece, all three (3) hits are wikipedia related &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 02:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 06:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reads more like a review than an encyclopedia article. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Weatherman90 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Google has 345 hits for Prince Rasu. Arniep 19:56, 2 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 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laird Noller of Hutchinson[edit]

nn car dealership; less than 400 google hits Where ^(talk) 02:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Montco 05:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. It reads like an advertisement. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:30, 2 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 Merge to Flaw--Adam ^(talk) 15:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Arrogance[edit]

non-notable album by non-notable group &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Flaw is notable per WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 02:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Flaw the band is barely notable, their albums dont need separate pages. JoshuaZ 03:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The band is somewhat notable, however I dont think separate pages for their albums is required, so merge as per JoshuaZ. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. NTK 06:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Doesn't need its own page. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete delete, not notable. Jonas Silk 14:26, 3 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 Geogre with summary (author blanked). -- JLaTondre 17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross_Hughes[edit]

Article is vanity benhughes 13:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It was db-bio to begin with, and then the subject of the article blanked it before the AfD notice was added. I have added a db-bio to it. --BillC 15:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no claim to notability. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-02t15:46z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man Timeline[edit]

Not verifiable, no instant sources are avalible to support claims and the entire listing is saturated with original research. Currently, no official statements from Cpacom verify the factual observations of this article. Zero^Talk 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; unencyclopedic, fancruft, original research, etc. Royboycrashfan 03:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Mega Man. It seems to just be a plot summary of the Megaman games. Many other Wikipedia entries for games (ex. Half-Life 2), contain plot summaries. Where ^(talk) 03:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Strong Delete - There's summaries and there's cruft, and right now I'm stinking cruftage around this page. I'd get pruning and merging right away, cruft0rs. The more I look at this article, the more it looks like a type of fanfic, taking place right here in an encyclopedia. It's certainly original research, they're guessing at dates for a fictional timeline because none are given. Even other fans are saying what is there isn't canon, is speculative or is flat out incorrect. No way should this be merged, or kept in any form. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Mega Man as per Where. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverifiable. MaxSem 11:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR, as Newsmare says. Looking through Talk:Mega Man Timeline, it seems that the actual dates on the time line are made up (e.g., 20XX is assumed to be 2014, or 2015, or something). Any verifiable plot information is already in the individual games' artilces, so there's no need to merge. - Rynne 14:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:V is non-negotiable Deizio 16:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. The right way to do it (relatively) would be to just re-write all the stories from the mega-man games (documented in manuals, etc) into a long history. At least there would be support. This is just guess work in attempting to contruct a timeline. Bobak 20:57, 6 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 transwiki to commons. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala image gallery[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of images Nv8200p talk 02:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:NOT Royboycrashfan 03:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Commons. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 03:03 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Commons per Cuivienen Where ^(talk) 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many galleries on WP. See: Rose gallery and Flower gallery. Both these were kept. Tobyk777 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki as above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki. The others galleries should have been as well. Average Earthman 12:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki, images should illustrate written articles. Deizio 16:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Transwiki. Although I believe that Image galeries have a place in Wikipedia, they need to be focused on a single topic rather than be a random collection of images associated with a place. This gallery would be similiar to a list like List of people, places, and things associated with Kerala. On the idea that wikipedia is not a repository of images, see the ongoing discusion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries. Dsmdgold 23:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepAll the images are related to the atricle Kerala. Most of the images are bundled with writeups related to the image. The gallery was created oving to the already overcrowded article.The gallery does add qualitative value to the atricle to which it's attached.Pratheepps
• Comment Commons is a Wikimedia project dedicated to media, especially photos, and it welcomes galleries. Provided the licenses for these photos are appropriate, Commons really welcomes this gallery. Wikipedia articles can link to Commons just as easily as they can link to other articles on Wikipedia, so the gallery will still be quite useful there. In addition, if the photos themselves are on Commons, then articles on Kerala in other Wikipedias can link to them (and the gallery) so the same photos and the same gallery become useful to many different projects. Take a look at galleries like Commons:Tokyo (that's just one example). It's better on Commons than on the English Wikipedia. Fg2 09:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above. --Khoikhoi 04:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above, w00t. --Bobak 20:59, 6 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferinite[edit]

Page is a definition for a non-notable ("not very commonly used") term from an MMORPG. —LrdChaos 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, crufty dicdef that does itself in. Royboycrashfan 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Royboycrashfan Where ^(talk) 04:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crufty McCruft. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletebecause WP:NOT, NOT, NOT for RPG ProtoCruft Deizio 16:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:30, 2 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maero[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Verified by the reference supplied by Kahuroa. Bucketsofg 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has references. Kahuroa 04:05, 2 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. JIP | Talk 05:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kahomovailahi[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. The bibliography supplied comes from Encyclopedia Mythica, which makes lots of mistakes. Bucketsofg 03:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Not a Samoan name in any case. Kahuroa 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep clearly a Tongan name (for some reason many of these articles confuse Tonga and Samoa), clearly a "famous" Tongan ancestor, but the "water feelers" thing is a bit hard to verify. Crypticfirefly 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Cryptic, I know what the water feeling thing is about. Traditional navigators were so familiar with the sea and its swells and with their canoe that they could just sense (thru their bodies) what course the canoe was on - ie, they were subconciously keeping track of the swells, wave patterns, the noises the canoe was making and correcting the course and position in their minds. It makes sense actually - feeling with the hand is just an extension of this. I agree its Tongan and could be persuaded. Kahuroa 06:47, 4 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kapuku[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verified by bibliography cited by Kahuroa in entry. Bucketsofg 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. as above - tho I think Bucketsofg was the verifier. Kahuroa 04:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Actually, I was the one who found the references. Crypticfirefly 22:09, 2 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ngaro[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found a source and corrected the article. Now serves to offset the inaccuracy and overgeneralisation of the [Encyclopedia Mythica] original. Kahuroa 03:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kahuroa. Bucketsofg 03:53, 2 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. JIP | Talk 05:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ngā Atua[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verified by Bucketsofg. Suggest rename to Nga Atua then Ngā Atua for correct orthography. Kahuroa 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved. Nga-Atua has been orphaned. Royboycrashfan 03:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and move per Kahuroa. Bucketsofg 03:54, 2 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahiuki[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unverified. Probably a spelling mistake for Mahiuka. Bucketsofg 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as above Kahuroa 06:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:31, 2 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahiki[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless the culture can be identified. Possibly Tongan or Niuean. But a scrap anyway. Kahuroa 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unverified. Not in Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology or in any other reliable source that I've checked. Bucketsofg 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:31, 2 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. Article has been moved to Kiwa (mythology) Proto||type 14:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwa (goddess)[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, move to Kiwa (sea guardian) or Kiwa (mythology). Goddess he is not. Kahuroa 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move per Kahuroa (well-referenced now thanks to Kahuroa). Bucketsofg 03:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move, thanks Kahuroa. Crypticfirefly 02:23, 4 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Losi (mythology)[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verified in source cited in entry. Bucketsofg 04:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. as per above. Kahuroa 04:06, 2 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 Merge with Kupua Proto||type 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kapua[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Kupua, which this is probably a spelling error for. Bucketsofg 04:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Kupua as above Kahuroa 04:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Kupua, for reasons above. Crypticfirefly 02:21, 4 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kanae[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verified by sources cited in entry. Bucketsofg 04:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. as above. Kahuroa 04:12, 2 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ngaru[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verified by bibliography cited in entry. Bucketsofg 04:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. as verified by Bucketsofg. Kahuroa 10:24, 4 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 01:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makutu[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as rewrittten by Kahuroa. Bucketsofg 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - rename Mākutu. Have corrected the article, and will add a little more to it. Kahuroa 03:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - obviously. Moriori 06:10, 2 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 rename Proto||type 14:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalamainu and Kilioa[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Kalamainu'u Bucketsofg 04:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Kalamainu'u as above Kahuroa 04:13, 2 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 01:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of contract killers[edit]

This list is unnecessary. We should just move all of the articles in it to Category:Contract killers and then make a subcategory for the fictional ones. A Clown in the Dark 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until someone does the work of moving it into categories. Where ^(talk) 04:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, categories can't repose red links. Royboycrashfan 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per redlinks, and that a subcategory for the fictional ones cannot be made since most of them don't have articles. Punkmorten 09:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reluctantly. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep absolutely. What is it with lists anyhow? Lists and categories are both valid and should both be kept. Jcuk 13:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, hire a hitman to delete later. I've moved my thoughts on this one to Talk:List_of_contract_killers. Cleanr 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep\Rename --Haham hanuka 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and post inclusion criteria. Seano1 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, categories are categories and list are lists. No red link can be found in a category. --Terence Ong 09:42, 3 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 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn_Marcel_Keyes[edit]

Mrs. Keyes does not with for this articles to exist. She is not a public figure and, as such, she has a right to privacy. She has never sought office, nor does she plan to and because of this, she is covered under privacy laws. Sethxy 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Keep Royboycrashfan 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator has just made up the supposed "privacy laws," and Keyes is a public figure (an "antiabortion activist," according to the Boston Globe, aside from all the public appearances she made with her husband.). Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of former presidential candidates' wives' sensibilities. Monicasdude 05:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unquestionably notable figure for the incident involving her daughter noted in the article. MCB 06:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mrs. Keyes is SOL. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 07:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:POINT, as I see no legitimate reason for deletion in the nomination beyond so-called right to privacy laws. Would be a keep regardless. She is a public figure. If someone wishes for an article about them not to exist, they should make sure that they don't meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough. Speedy keep, if possible. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: check out the bizarre comment about the soup kitchen. What does having Asian and Indian roots have to do with it? -- Kjkolb 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I went ahead and removed that comment from the article. Seano1 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, don't know if there's enough to avoid a redirect to her husband. Article needs verification, sources. A link to a Boston Globe article about her, for example. But get outta here with the "privacy laws" nonsense. Deizio 16:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikify --Haham hanuka 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it, as possibly notable beyond being a candidate's spouse, but nix that "soup kitchen - Indian roots" business. Failing this, merge to husband's article. ProhibitOnions 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not sure a person becomes notable just by being married to a notable person, and I am uncomfortable with the idea that she can be made notable by her daughter airing the family dirty laundry in public. My opinion is merge the content but delete, do not keep as a redirect, and must cite sources. Thatcher131 00:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. This is a woman who (at the rock bottom least) acquiesced to the possibility of becoming the First Lady of the United States, for heaven's sake: she has zero basis upon which to hide under a rock now. Nom needs some serious education about the substance of the cited so-called "privacy laws." RGTraynor 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an article for Cindy McCain, and the only reason we have this article is because of the allegations made by her daughter. This should be merged to the main Alan Keyes article as her daughter's complaint, even if notable, applies to both parents anyway. Thatcher131 18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As people have been able to logically ascertain, there are no such made up "privacy laws" for this particular situation, btw I'm a lawyer --but none of your lawyers ;-) --Bobak 21:03, 6 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 Proto||type 14:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 1, 2006 (Complete List)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

This article contains the non-notable pranks that don't quite make it into April 1, 2006. But since these pranks are non-notable and the April 1, 2006 article contains a message stating all non-notable pranks will be deleted, the pranks here should not belong in any article. joturner 04:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What, by definition, is notable? This, in itself, could be a debate argued for every article on Wikipedia. If we look at the supposedly notable website pranks listed in April 1, 2006, a great ratio of them are rather techy/geeky web sites that probably tend to be visited frequently by the same folks who visit Wikipedia. (Certainly, WE'RE not the end-all-determiners-of-importance in the universe, as much as we would like to be!) The web is transient by nature, more so with these one-day internet pranks that we're trying to preserve for all posterity. If we choose to note any of these brief incidents, we should list them all. I advocate that we have a sampling of the most prominent pranks at April 1, 2006 and retain the rest at April 1, 2006 (Complete List). Daniel 21:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia isn't exactly hard-up for hard-drive space. The article is not hurting anyone and I've directed at least two dozen people there because they've specifically said to me, "Gee, I wish there was a place where I could see a list of all the April Fools jokes pulled today." In other words, the article is useful, harmless and it's hardly taking up space desperately needed for another article on obscure anime. Keep the article. —This unsigned comment was added by 200.77.30.205 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep and Clean up The thing is, I haven't (nor has anyone else) scoured this list to check to see if any of the items in here are notable. I moved all the items from April 1, 2006 here and then copied a few of the notable ones for Internet back over. I agree that after the process of determining notable pranks for April Fool's Day 2006, this page could be deleted if people feel it should be, but for now, I think it is important to keep. Zebov 04:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move content to April 1, 2006 and delete. Royboycrashfan 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, but renominate in a couple days. Just... have to... survive... three more... hours... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Content to April 1, 2006, and Delete. The definition of non notable seems to be determined by a few people, and I'd still like to see these jokes regardless of the gestapo polices opinions. 68.1.59.30 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a particular entry is noteworthy that others don't agree with, discuss it on the April 1, 2006 discussion page. The problem is, when there are thousands of entries, it's hard for people to find the more noteworthy ones. Zebov 05:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that any of the ones left are noteworthy, (though Im sure a few are) but that's not the point. I don't see the harm in keeping them on a seperate page forever, even if a million people didn't see something, a few may have and want a record kept of it. The Move Content isnt saying that a blogs joke should go between gamefaqs and slashdot, or even anywhere near it, but I don't think the blogs joke should disappear because not everyone in the world saw it or cared. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that might not be viewed by more than 10 people ever. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be here. 68.1.59.30 05:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Zebov 05:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, This list is a handy complilation of all april fools jokes, useful information which should be accessible. elyk 05:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, the page certainly details the diversity of jokes at minimal cost. -- Taral 05:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I like going through all the obscure Web sites that took the time to modify their themes for April Fool's Day. Just because someone else doesn't feel the site is noteworthy doesn't mean that I won't want to see it. Besides, what better place to document all of the sites that changed? Trunkmonkey 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Definite Keep, Does having it here hurt anything? I'm positive that at least for the next week, this article is going to be getting thousands of people, wanting to check out various jokes. I know I will. It will also serve as a handy guide of the events that transpired yesterday to future generations.--Captain Cornflake 05:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - good compilation of April Fool jokes on the internet which is easily accessible. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC). However, after looking at the article again. It looked more of a web directory, which Wikipedia is definitely not so my vote is going to change to Move the notable stuff to April 1, 2006 then delete --Arnzy (Talk) 15:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Definite Keep, I personally don't see peoples problems with keeping this page. I mean, it gives somebody something to do just looking through all the jokes for the day. Afterall Wikipedia probably has an immense ammount of storage space and can afford to keep this page.--Linkman2004 05:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Definite Keep, This is a great article that records some humorous events in Internet history. I'd rather have a complete list than a list that selects only a few "notable" pranks. —This unsigned comment was added by 72.155.181.85 (talk • contribs) .
• Strong Keep This stuff is very interesting. -Unknownwarrior33 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; Wikipedia is not a web directory. Kirill Lokshin 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since the consensus (much to my surprise) seems to be that all of these events are in fact worth keeping (does that equal "notable"?), perhaps a Merge with April 1, 2006 is order? The problem I have here is that we have two different articles that are on the exact same thing; that sounds like a fork to me. joturner 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind that last comment; I just can't advocate keeping this article. joturner 05:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, why are you averse to it existing as a fork? Or in a "less notable pranks" section on the main article? It's not making anyone click on the unimportant pranks, just listing their existence, for anyone that may be interested. There are tons of articles that stretch out into infinity where only a few of the people that read them will ever delve into the wealth of knowledge they possess... I say if it fits, and any one person wants it on wikipedia, (which, I'm guessing each of these qualifies), and it doesn't violate any policies, it should stay. (btw, whoever may eventually tally the votes. I voted above, so ignore this) 68.1.59.30 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. joturner 06:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, the forking certainly applies here, however, I don't think the repository of links does. That section specifies the links as detracting from the article, for example on an actors page where the page has 3 lines and then 18 links to fan sites on the actor. In this case the article is the collection of links. Even if you removed all of the links, the mere fact that a site had a hoax should gain it an entry of some importance if someone is willing to write it. The only difference between this page and the real page seems to be the popularity of the sites, and with the votes so far, I'd say a majority aren't happy with the current popularity cutoff.68.1.59.30 06:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the popularity part is the biggest issue, as I noted in my vote below no prior years specify the pranks as notable only, appparently any prank someone felt like listing was included. This year's list is much larger but this seems to be because this year has seen far more pranks than prior years. One example on this whole notable/non-notable thing: On the main page the entry about Yahoo! saying they were buying all of Web 2.0 is listed. On the complete list page it lists right under that same entry two Web 2.0 companies who went along with the prank and posted a fake news item on their websites that they were being bought by Yahoo! Personally I've not seen that type of collaboration much before (actually never personally) so I think it's highly notable. I could add it to the main page but the thing is: who decides what's notable and what's not? Maestro4k 06:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move content to April 1, 2006 and delete here as well. No prior year's April's Fools Day page says the lists are only notable pranks, it seems odd to change that suddenly this year. Maestro4k 06:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent note! I just gave a look at some of the previous years entrys, and there are some incredibly low traffic site pranks on some of them. I can't believe that those have stood there for years without a problem, and this years are going to make or break wikipedia.68.1.59.30 06:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous years didn't have NEARLY this many entries. The thing is, at what point do you NOT include a prank? Should I include setting the clocks wrong in my house or a friend of mine posting a fake entry on his blog? Where is the line on what is included in the article? Zebov 01:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I like April Fool's jokes, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a massive collection of mostly non-notable links. Someone should go through this and merge notable pranks to the April 1, 2006 article first, of course, but we shouldn't have a listing for every single website that pulled a prank this year. BryanG 07:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to April 1, 2006, insignificant or not. The famous sites could be boldfaced or something or listed before others. I don't know. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Keep. The current version of the main page seems to have some Internet pranks listed that seem less significant than some of the ones of this ancillary page, judging by the apparent prominence of some of the web pages mentioned. I have no problem with a two-tier system of major pranks relating to well-known sites, companies, etc. (e.g. such-and-such being bought out by Yahoo!) with the rest relegated to the "complete list" page. However, I would strongly object to the idea of removing the complete list entirely. This is a very interesting document of the day's ephemera, many of which will no longer be viewable in the next day or two. A written record of what was out there on April 1, 2006 should be of continuing interest to people who encountered or perpetrated some of the pranks, with renewed interest as people gear up for April 1, 2007. Whether the listing is merged or retained on a separate page, further sorting of the long "uncategorized" section would be helpful, and probably not all that hard to accomplish. Karen 08:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just to follow up a bit on the discussion since I posted the above. I'll grant that what happened on a blog with 25 readers is less notable than, for example, Google Romance. I will further admit that I naively added a reference to the former before reading that one is not supposed to do that with one's one work. If a "complete" list (or as nearly complete as possible) is desirable, that one line belongs here anyway; if not, it should go. However, such a marginal case is not emblematic of everything that's been removed from the "notable" list and relegated to this one. I see, for example, that the NPR story about the fake product the iBod has been removed from the main page. If a five minute story on a national news program isn't notable, then nothing is. In addition, I have no doubt that many of the Internet references that didn't make the cut nevertheless were significant and of continuing interest to specific online communities. To suggest that this entire second entry is merely a link farm, based on the occasional reference to someone's blog, is a straw man argument. If it makes anyone feel any better, links can be removed to defeat any promotional purpose - but the list itself should be preserved as a historical document. Karen 03:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to userspace. After all, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. It's interesting enough, but I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for it. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Delete, and the blogosphere will never forgive you. Mike Abundo 9:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:. I already voted below, but I just wanted to add that Wikipedia can do redirection automatically to the April 1, 2006 page so how is this such an issue? Localhost 23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on the basis that everything worth mentioning should be in April 1, 2006 already, and if it isn't important enough for that article, then it isn't important enough for Wikipedia. -- Chuq 10:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. This looks like nothing more than an excuse for people to promote their non-notable websites (very few, if any, non-website related hoaxes have been added to the article compared to the original). Anything notable should be in the original, anything non-notable doesn't belong at Wikipedia (except perhaps in userspace). —David Johnson [T|C] 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn nonsense. And check how many of the keep votes are maybe by the same person just in case... Marcus22 12:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move content to April 1, 2006 and delete. Maestro's convinced me. EntChickie 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as April Fool's listcruft. Unmaintainable, unverifiable list, if it's claiming to be a definitive list of hoaxes. Heck, it doesn't list how I fooled my brother into thinking he'd gotten a parking ticket. - Rynne 15:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. —81.178.110.230 15:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to log in before posting the above comment. —Spe88 15:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. It's really interesting to have this listed somewhere. Mark the Echidna 16:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Somehow I don't see slashdot, yahoo, blizzard, or some of the other sites there as anything resembling nn. Maybe some of the really non-notable stuff should be deleted, though. Shadowoftime 16:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nothing wrong with the article. The Filmaker 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find this to be a useful chronicle of all that went on for April Fool's Day, but as too long and cumbersome to be part of the main article. I'd keep as is. Ithizar 17:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with April 1, 2006 and Delete this one. There's no reason to have both a "notable" and "complete" listings for an event that recurs annually. Zarggg 17:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with April 1, 2006. How and who determines what is notable, especially when it's just jokes? If it were a bunch of personal blogs maybe I would go for delete, but I see plenty of sites on here that are large communities (tens of thousands of active users, if not more) in their subject matter. And some of them do not have wikipedia entries. Just because you haven't heard of them or aren't up to date on that part of the world, doesn't mean they don't reach a lot of people who get a kick out of it. At this point, I think you either have all the april fool's jokes on one page or don't have an april fool's page at all (and delete the previous years while you're at it). 18:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by 71.255.76.240 (talk • contribs) .

• Merge with April 1, 2006. There is certainly enough content to break each April Fools down by year, however, dividing it up further is not only confusing but unfair. I would agree some jokes are higher profile, such as Slashdot's pranks, but what's a "notable" joke or not is WAY to opinionated to be done in such a way. My solution would be to put the agreeably more notable ones at the top, possibly in bold or something. Giving them their own page however is ridiculous. As for deleting this content, that is NOT a viable option. This is a wonderfl resource for pranks on the internet and in a way is a historical record, and I think it holds value for many people, and anything with value even to a small amount of people should not be deleted. This article certainly harms nobody by it's it existence, and thus there is no defense for it's deletion, other than that it should be combined with April 1, 2006, and then deleted. Nmaster64 19:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge with April 1, 2006. I agree, you can't really determine if a site is notable or not unless you are familiar with every site on the Internet. What is notable to thousands in that sites community may not be notable with the person making the distinction. Also, a site may become notable at some point. There are certainly more frivilous things on here that are considered important. Terrix 17:01, 2 April 2006 (EST)

• Keep - Useful to know what happened this April Fools Day. --FlyingPenguins 22:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - Predominantly non-notable entries, wikipedia is not a historical time capsule, unencyclopedic, etc. ZacharyS 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Bevo 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge with April 1, 2006. I think that many sites listed here are noteworthy and shouldn't be ignored. 郵便箱 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Per being unecyclopedic and Wikipedia not being a webdirectory. —Ruud 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I went to the other April 1 page and this is just easier to read, and provides a much better organized list than the other page does. If anything else merge the other page into this one, not this one into the other page . —This unsigned comment was added by 67.110.194.25 (talk • contribs) .
  • The other page, April 1, 2006 was much more organized until someone decide to remove all organization. I believe there has been an attemp to reorganize the other page now, but the "notability" of the links on the "noteworthy" page is quite questionable now. Zebov 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reintroduced the categorisation for the original page, but it attracts nearly every edit - no-one is going to decide that their favourite site is non-notable and should go on the other page. The original mentions only including sites which have a Wikipedia entry already, which seems reasonable, and I tried to give them prominence, but there were just too many to try to ascertain the notability of all of them (and whether they should be moved to this other page, if it ends up being kept). -- Mithent 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable. Deltabeignet 03:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's a useful article to have. —This unsigned comment was added by 128.227.131.135 (talk • contribs) .

• Merge with April 1, 2006 and delete. One centrally and well organized page should suffice and is a lot easier to keep up-to-date then 2 separate pages that basically contain the same content (i.e. think thumbnail vs the full picture). There is no reason to list some on one page and everything else on another and there certainly is no easy way to say what goes on the short list. Localhost 05:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ray Trygstad 05:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful content into April 1, 2006. If people are interested in this sort of thing, I see no reason to make them look it up in two separate articles. --Metropolitan90 07:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change than Keep. Maybe remove all links, ect. so it is not a FFAL page, and just a record of what happened on April 1.--Abbott75 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It needs some cleaning, but I don't see why this isn't worthy of being preserved. It's a great read! --echelon ^talk 08:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 09:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I'm with this guy's views on the matter: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/04/april_fools_day.php "Wikipedia has now split its list of April Fools pranks onto two pages, one containing just "notable" pranks and the other containing a complete list of pranks. A heated debate has also broken out between a group of Wikipedians who believe the complete list should be deleted because it contains "non-notable" pranks and another group of Wikipedians who believe the complete list should be maintained for posterity. ... What seems like a non-notable prank today may seem like a notable prank to those future generations. I think it's better to err on the side of caution." Bob, just Bob 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep 85.64.55.137 12:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this is stupid. Firstly Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means it should include things that are likely to be noteworthy not only now but in the future too. Nobody in 5 years (or even minutes) time will care what some non-notable website did on April fools day 2006 - they will care what major sites and other media did. Secondly, it would be very interesting to see how many of the people voting have some relation to an entry on the page - I would suggest that the only way for the closing admin to fairly determine the outcome of this discussion is to only count votes from unbiased Wikipedians (i.e. registered users with a reasonable number of contributions) who have not added entries to the page concerned. —David Johnson [T|C] 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds to be me like YOU are the one who is trying to sway the vote. Nice try though. -- TomUnder This comment is actually from User:72.155.182.149, not User:TomUnder.
    • I'm trying to sway it insofar as I want to convince people that this nonsense should be deleted; that's what these discussions are for. Other than that I'm just not happy with people using Wikipedia as a promotion tool for their websites then coming here to subvert what should be a fair process. —David Johnson [T|C] 09:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What evidence is there that it's being used as a promotion tool for websites? And how would being linked off of one single page on Wikipedia (that's likely not going to get very much traffic after a few weeks until next year) actually benefit a site? It'd take a lot more links from many pages to achieve any real benefits. Maestro4k 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course it's being used as a promotion tool - people are adding links to their own sites with for the sole purpose of increasing traffic to them. I've seen this enough times on Wikipedia to recognise when it's happening. Having your site linked from Wikipedia, even from a single page, can bring a lot more traffic and affect search engine rankings pretty dramatically. Go look for youself at voters' contributions and see how many have added to the article. —David Johnson [T|C] 00:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I can't predict the future, so I don't know what sites will be notable 5 years from now, how do you? I'm quite certain that people of almost any past era would be quite surprised at what we find interesting about their societies today, and we should keep that in mind. I'm an amateur historian and when I've done research with primary and secondary sources in the past even the tiniest of details can be utterly fascinating. I'm not sure offhand if April Fool's Day was celebrated 100 years ago but if it was I would LOVE to know what types of pranks were pulled, even the minor ones. Just because it seems silly or trivial to you today does not mean it will be seen as silly, trivial or non-noteworthy in the future. Also, please remember Wikipedia's policy of Assuming Good Faith. Suggesting that Keep voters are biased certainly isn't in the spirit of that policy. Maestro4k 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but there's a big difference between this and historial data: firstly there is not much data about April fools day 100 years ago - if there was, then you probably would only be interested in the notable stuff. Secondly, nobody will ever convince me that someone 100 years in the future will care what some website which was around for a few years without ever gaining popularity did on April fools day 2006. I'm also not saying that everyone voting keep is biased: I'm saying that a not-insignificant percentage of them are (and no doubt some delete voters too), as is clear from the number of unregistered and newly-created-with-no-contributions users voting. —David Johnson [T|C] 09:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You missed a very key point in what I said -- we can't see the future, how do you, I or anyone else know what will be considered notable in the future? We don't, and can't without a time machine. To (futily) address your point about people in the future caring: you'd have likely been hard pressed to convince many people during Shakespeare's time that his plays were notable since they were designed as popular entertainment. Nowadays we consider them absolute classics but it's quite likely that Shakespeare himself never thought of them as such, time changes perceptions on things, even jokes. Finally I can't speak for any other newly registerd voters but I personally registered because I felt it was important to tie a name to my vote. I have edited several times in the past (mainly to correct grammatical errors and such) but never felt it was worth registering just for that. Even so I don't think any of the voters are voting because they're biased, astroturfing or trying to stuff the ballot (to mention all negatives suggested so far). I think they're voting what they feel is correct even if they disagree with my stance. Maestro4k 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Shakespeare's not a good example, since his plays attracted significant audiences during his time and he was well regarded, thus making him notable enough. In any case, Wikipedia's stance on issues like this are well known: if something isn't notable now, it doesn't get into Wikipedia. If and when something becomes notable, it can be included, but not before. To suggest that nobody here is making a biased vote is very naive: this happens a lot on Wikipedia and I have no doubt that plenty of the voters here have added links to sites they're involved with to the page (maybe some have even been directed here from those sites to vote for the page to be kept - this happens a lot too). —David Johnson [T|C] 00:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Juan Manuel at Buenos Aires —This unsigned comment was added by 201.216.208.194 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep This is just like cataloging anything on the Internet, which Wikipedia is already doing in many other areas. Deleting this article would require or create a sweeping precedent for "list of..." articles. DrKC9N 13:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bob, I think you missed that Nick's comment was ironic. That's funny. Caligola 13:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep As I noted on the Article's talk page, this page should be kept for the simple reason that it's just as encyclopediac as the other lists we have going. If we take down this list, then we'd have to take down the List of Cancelled Video Games and other such lists for the same reason, yet those lists have lasted since their creation. -- Xgamer4 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep or merge I echo the sentiments of many above. This is part of history. 10 years from now people will regret it if this information is lost. —This unsigned comment was added by 216.40.222.91 (talk • contribs) .

• Strong Keep Is a piece of history, keep!!! —This unsigned comment was added by 212.216.172.122 (talk • contribs) .

• Merge notable pranks and delete. It's a fork full of non-notable pranks. Wikipedia not a web directory, avoid forking and all that. -- Blorg 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, astroturfing notwithstanding. If ten years from now the fact that the author of fuckedgoogle.com pretended to be in love with a Google employee is lost, I doubt it will be regretted by many. --Sneftel 19:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Merge It's good to be able to find the whole list easily. Was handy enough to me to have the other page bookmarked anyway. —This unsigned comment was added by 81.104.144.93 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep as an encyclopedia we should aim for comprehensiveness.  Grue  21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It is a must! 203.109.240.139 09:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry I did not sign in Jc101 09:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this one, delete the other and rename this one in its place. --Billpg 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is a list that can never, despite the article's name, be complete. The place to create such a list of non-notables is on your own blog, not a serious encyclopaedia. --BillC 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete This is, at best, cruft, and at worse, a very silly shot at giving the "non-notable" AFJs their own article. By definition, things that are not notable should not be written up on Wikipedia. Robin Johnson 15:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for two reasons: (1) people can sort out the nn stuff in the editing process and, nearly as important (2) to unstarch the starched shirts. Bobak 21:07, 6 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious sycle[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 04:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:VANITY. Dammit, their homepage is on MySpace. Royboycrashfan 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. Mikker ^(...) 05:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious vanity. Bio is also nonsense. NTK 06:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Vanity, nn per WP:MUSIC. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Speedy Delete trenchant cockshittery. Has been deleted before... as per User_talk:Daithi6. Let's expedite this MFs demise. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 18:16, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Manchester General Hospital[edit]

nn hospital Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 04:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per abova. --MaNeMeBasat 07:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It may be non-notable to many people, but it's notable enough to people in Manchester. It's a real place and Wikipedia isn't hard up for the storage space so what is the harm? Expand slightly and put into categories. Ben W Bell 08:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while the hospital is certainly very notable within the city, it is not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. -- Kjkolb 09:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if we can keep articles on every school that exists I see no problem keeping this. Jcuk 13:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Hospitals are valid local history topics. CalJW 16:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, needs to hit WP:HEY to get close to a keep. Deizio 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as major hospital, certainly notable in Manchester. Needs improvement, though. ProhibitOnions 20:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it could be expanded. Weatherman90 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bige1977 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although clearly needs expanding and much interesting history re Manchester and provision of health services pre-NHS in England are related. A good enough stub for now.David Ruben ^Talk 10:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Vegaswikian 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and expand. Bobak 21:30, 6 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greggles Fansite[edit]

Article on NN website created by person who started it, only 138 members Mikker ^(...) 05:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:WEB and WP:CRUFT. Royboycrashfan 05:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the cruftiest of the crufty --Deville (Talk) 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:WEB, per my original PROD. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable website. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ÜberCruft. Don't call us.... Deizio 17:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Haham hanuka 19:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bige1977 22:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article go squish now. Bobak 21:29, 6 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 userfy to User:Shannonmuir. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Muir[edit]

Vanity bio of VERY minor animation production co-ordinator (created by Shannonmuir (talk · contribs), funnily enough). Calton | Talk 05:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:BIO. Royboycrashfan 05:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Royboy --Deville (Talk) 05:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Montco 05:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is fine with me if that be majority rule. I'm learning my way around, no offense meant. The message that came up originally implied perhaps all you wanted was more information. I just know that I have made a lot of impact on people over the years but it's all a matter of perspective. Thank you for the exercise in humility. Shannonmuir

• Left a comment on her userpage on the AfD process. T K E 06:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (although it should be noted that this is fairly well-written and non-hagiographic, rare for a vanity page here). Joe 06:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps could be moved to the Shannonmuir user page if she wishes. Well written article but unfortunately she doesn't meet WP:BIO by my reckoning. Capitalistroadster 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be fine with moving it if that is workable, just let me know what needs to be done.--Shan 07:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I don't know what I could add that hasn't already been said. TheDrinkNinja 08:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy as suggested above seems reasonable, if so desired. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy seems to be the best option here. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per above. Grandmasterka 14:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems notable --Haham hanuka 19:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Weatherman90 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy as suggested above seems reasonable, if so desired.--Dangerous-Boy 05:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy sounds reasonable. Bobak 21:32, 6 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 with a big stick. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The slash pairing of Ville Valo/Bam Margera[edit]

Delete. A supposed relationship but "neither has admitted to have a romantic interest in the other", which makes it totally unverifiable. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:CRUFT. Royboycrashfan 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely and utterly irrelevant. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above; I really think this is a hoax as well --Deville (Talk) 05:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Evan Seeds (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Royboycrashfan. Mikker ^(...) 05:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-02 06:43Z
• Delete, per nom and Royboycrashfan. --Soumyasch 06:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a hoax, I hear this widely discussed among the Idiot community. But does not belong in Wikipedia. Poledancer 08:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fanficruft. Full disclosure: I'll be honest, I don't understand this whole "slash" fan fiction thing. What's next, The slash pairing of the Phillie Phanatic/Alan Greenspan? (I hope that link never turns blue...) --Kinu ^t/_c 08:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte. Pure idioticy.Tombride 08:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Makes no sense at all. Grandmasterka 14:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although if nobody was looking, Bam would. Deizio 17:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:32, 2 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. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land ownership of Palestine[edit]

POV fork, original research; should be in relevant article (e.g. British Mandate of Palestine). Sub-articles hive off only when they get so large they need to. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 05:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV fork. Mikker ^(...) 05:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is a good example of content forking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Content fork. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Agree with above. Covered elsewhere. — RJH 16:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. As far as I am concerened there is no specific section or article regarding discussion and debate of the land ownership of Palestine. The intent of this article was not to list the percentages, but to further cover details (such as cultivable lands, urband areas, farms, villages etc.) that could make the British Mandate of Palestine really long. Like I said on the talk page, it is under construction. once it is completed then perhaps we can truly judge it's importnace.Bless sins 18:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - useful content, should be merged with an appropriate article. Afonso Silva 23:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Jonas Silk 14:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge -- perhaps retitle as "Land Tenure in Palestine"? Javadane 01:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Viriditas | Talk 08:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Del per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 10:09, 9 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global peace control[edit]

Utter nonsense, sections copied from global warming mixed with apparent test edits Mikker ^(...) 05:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nonsense. Royboycrashfan 05:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Patent nonsense. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete WP:PN. Cleanr 16:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, patent nonsense. --Soumyasch 17:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, complete nonsense --Deville (Talk) 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Jonas Silk 14:28, 3 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; Per A7. Moe ε 06:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Followers of Christ[edit]

Non Notable Religious Organization, reviewed Google under Colin Lok, 40 hits, not sure if those were even him. Montco 05:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy A7. Royboycrashfan 05:37, 2 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. G1, A1, A7, take your pick. Moe ε 06:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom rood[edit]

Tom Rood is an incredibly cool and daraing person. While he is cooler than everyone else on the planet, he is also much hotter. every girl in the world wants him because he is so hott. if a girl does not want him, she is almost certainly a lesbian.

                        REMEMBER, IF YOU THINK YOU ARE COOLER THAN TOM, YOU ARE AN IDIOT. NOONE IS.

                                                      MWUHAHAHAHA

• Speedy Delete per nom =) Dalamori 05:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • note: I didnt make this page, I found its deletion page from looking at the original authors contributions Dalamori 06:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G1/A7 We don't need AfD. Royboycrashfan 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Choose your critera out of a hat :P A7. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 06:00, 2 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. Kusma (討論) 15:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rake and trail[edit]

Article is about design making on a mototrcycle. It's written in a POV by the author. Information as far as I can see is not encyclopedic enough to keep. Moe ε 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While this article is rather poorly written and in the POV of the original author, it certainly seems to be overkill to delete it. It's a relatively new article and at least one editor has added a significant section (albeit little better than what existed before). It should retain its current ((wikify)) tag, or maybe a cleanup tag, and let a few more people take a stab at fixing it. It certainly seems to contain enough kernels to warrant a good article, if an editor cares to take a stab at it.Fluit 08:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and spilt into two articles - Rake (motorcycle) and Trail (motorcycle). It attempts to explain these 2 terms, but not so well at present. I've started off rewording the first 2 paragraphs. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag for cleanup.--Isotope23 16:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being from the motorcycling world, I can attest that this is a valid entry. Will attempt to clean up in a few days when I have some more time. Milq 21:38, 5 April 2006

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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  (aeropagitica)  09:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intra-portfolio correlation[edit]

WP:NOT an instruction manual or how-to guide. Mikker ^(...) 06:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Really lousy article, but its a pretty significant concept in portfolio management.Montco 07:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nomination. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:33, 2 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 01:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Cleare[edit]

NN athlete per WP:BIO Mikker ^(...) 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He was in the olympics. Mike _{(T C)} 06:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep like for all olympics peoples. --James 06:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He competed for his country in the Olympics, just because he didn't win a medal doesn't mean he's not notable. Ben W Bell 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't remember creating that article... but (weak) keep, finished 6th at the Olympics. Punkmorten 09:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. IMO if you completed at the Olympics, then there is space for you on WP! -- Chuq 10:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, significant Olympic athlete. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 14:11 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:BIO by competing at the highest level, ie the Olympics. CalJW 16:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above - seems to be top tier and covered. Kuru ^talk 04:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Osgoodelawyer 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --Ardenn 21:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Kafkan 10:02, 6 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BootsnAll[edit]

Delete per WP:CORP Dalamori 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Er, the article admits it's NN T K E 07:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from creator. After further review maybe this site doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. I thought it won a Forbes award, which would have satisfied WP:WEB, but the site was only mentioned on the same page, not as an awardee. No vote. --CrypticBacon 08:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not really notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G7 and A7. --Sneftel 18:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatbeard[edit]

Neologism, with only a small number of Google hits that aren't part of usernames. Brian Kendig 06:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not urban dictionary, delete as neologism. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 06:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, unverifiable neologism. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 World Badminton Championships[edit]

The winner will be review in Gold medalists at the IBF World Championships & the future competiton will be noted down in IBF World Championships. As you know, the competition is hard to list down the result all. Aleenf1 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [as reason above]:

• 2005 World Badminton Championships
• 2006 World Badminton Championships
• 2007 World Badminton Championships

• Speedy Keep. I see no reason at all to delete these.Tombride 08:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tombride. Punkmorten 08:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all World Championships in credible international sports. CalJW 16:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep all as highly notable sporting events. ProhibitOnions 21:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Osgoodelawyer 19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CalJW and ProhibitOnions. Sue Anne 06:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all of the above nominated articles. These are notable sporting events and should be kept. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 09:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course. Korg (talk) 02:53, 6 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casssidy[edit]

• Delete - 'Cam girl' from ifriends.com. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 07:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable and as not meeting WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing that shows subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Not at all notable, really. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm sure she's a nice person and quite talented, but it's not exactly a rare occupation. Peter Grey 04:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 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 a non-notable group. Turnstep 15:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ascots band[edit]

advertising, non notable band, plays parties in Tennessee Montco 07:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BAND and WP:VANITY. Allmusic results do show that a notable band called the Ascots do exist [1], though I doubt it has any relationship with the nominated band --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: A7; I see no attempted assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Kinu. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film ick[edit]

Anonymous dePROD without comment. Non-notable blog. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB; not Alexa rankable, obviously, since it's hosted on Blogspot. Likely WP:VSCA, as author is User:Brendonconnelly. Weak Google presence; most results are either linkbacks from other blogs or for irrelevant phrases such as "Gigli was a bad film... ick!" Delete. Kinu ^t/_c 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I ((prod))ded the article and it hasn't been improved by the author it can be safely deleted - WP:WEB violation.  (aeropagitica)  09:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:56, 4 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 merge to Cadiz. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish merchant community in 18th century Cadiz[edit]

No context for a seemingly un-notable topic. Brought to AfD on account of it being sourced. cj | talk 07:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps merge to Cadiz or some other related article? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cadiz, as per above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is about Ireland's history more than about Cadiz. CalJW 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or Merge. RGTraynor 19:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cadiz or le keep-keep. Bobak 21:35, 6 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Big Adventure 3[edit]

Unannounced game, Impossible to verify. I added a prod template which was removed. jacoplane 07:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V, WP:SOFTWARE, and WP:Not a crystal ball --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: 25K Google hits and a huge fan campaign to "Make it happen!". Notable! MaxSem 11:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TBC, and it's already mentioned as much as it needs to be in Adeline Software International. --Fuzzie (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending verification. If we can get a reliable source, consider this a neutral. Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 203 unique google hits [2]. Also, the Magicball network, the community that is trying to get little big adventure 3 out, only has 394 active memebers Where ^(talk) 17:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep. Pirkovank 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. When (if) the game comes out, then we can assess its notability. RGTraynor 19:38, 3 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 Redirected to Kuala Lumpur.  (aeropagitica)  09:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuala Lumpur City Centre[edit]

DeleteThis article offers nothing that isn't arleady included in the Kuala Lumpur article.Tombride 08:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kuala Lumpur Where ^(talk) 17:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Where. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This editor has created countless articles just like this one, and appears to be totally ignoring suggestions other editors have made on his talkpage regarding making articles that are actually useful. --Icarus 06:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the main KL page is in need of a sub-article. Doesn't seem to be the case. Marskell 07:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kuala Lumpur, a useless article and there's no need for such an article for the time being. --Terence Ong 09:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Royboycrashfan 22:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I would say redirect, but how many times would the redirect be used? I would think very few. Timrem 02:31, 7 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.