< April 19	April 21 >

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew VanWickler, 3dvw[edit]

Delete - no claims of notability, obvious vanity. If anyone else besides the author/himself has proof of his notability, please provide it. Wickethewok 05:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I am also nominating his production company, which also does not seem to be notable. Wickethewok 05:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Vanity. -- RHaworth 05:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete both. Why was the article not tagged speedy in the first place? AfD is for when there is an argument over whether or not to delete. --Chris (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was met with protest over my prod for Andrew VanWickler, so I sent that here. I added 3dvw, as it was created at the same time by the same editor about the same subject. Just thought it'd be easier to get them both out of the way at the same time. Is there grounds for speedy deletion for articles such as 3dvw? Wickethewok 06:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would seem there is no such criteria. My mistake. How I wish there were though; I'm tired of having to bring such obvious non-notable vanity to AfD. --Chris (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - this seems like an obvious case. Esn 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious. --Mwongozi 18:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above ShootJar 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete non-notable/vanity. Cool3 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. incog 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IT audit resources[edit]

This seems to be a combination of advertising and a directory with nothing useful or encyclopedic. Paul 20:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 20:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/IT audit resources) just a collection of links, the article has not been improved from the last VfD. AndyZ _t 21:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Riddle[edit]

This is a multiple nomination, here are the other articles nominated:

• Retards 101
• Ghosts Blow
• Chicken Pie Studios

Who is Travis Riddle? A flagrant self publicist from what I can see in these articles. Written by a User:EightSlicesOfPie, this also happens to be Riddle's handle in their forums and on their contact page. Is he notable? Are any of his projects notable? Neither of their domains, http://www.retards101.com/ nor http://www.colonelsandurz.com/ gets any Alexa rank. His webcomic, incidentally is part of the UTurn Creative Studios, which incidentally had another webcomic deleted a few weeks back here. Travis is not a notable human, and his projects are non notable websites. Wikipedia is not the place for this. - Hahnchen 00:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete as a non-notable webcomic. Also, in addition to the above mentioned, there are only 121 Google results [1]--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Dawson 00:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn webstuff, per nom Deizio 01:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn webcomic, vanity.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn,vain Ronabop 01:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn webcomic, and per nom. Funnybunny ^(talk) _{Vote for this policy} 03:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Whouk (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 09:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn webcomic and per nom. --Terence Ong 10:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Blatant vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. --Bob 15:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanicruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable webcomic.--Dakota ~ 21:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portkey.org[edit]

Non-notable fanfiction web site. Attempted prod; author removed tag. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what the threshold is for fanfiction notability, but, given the lack of page for more notable Harry Potter fanfiction sites such as Harrypotterfanfiction.com, I will assume that the threshold is higher than this site. Delete. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 00:36 UTC
• Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking is 40,666 [2], far too high to be notable--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft, advertising. Ronabop 01:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn advertisment, Fan website, and per nom. Funnybunny ^(talk) _{Vote for this policy} 03:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TBC. SorryGuy 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fancruft, advertising. JIP | Talk 07:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 10:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. --Bob 15:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Music Master
  • User has eight contributions, comprising four comments in AFD discussions. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Neutrality as patent nonsense.. --Hetar 04:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googolseptendeciplex[edit]

• How is this number useful to talk about?? Is this article really useful?? Please delete. Georgia guy 00:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia != Infinite no matter what the everything is notable crowd say. - Hahnchen 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable numbercruft. I'm not convinced by the article that this number even actually exists as a named number. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 00:33 UTC
• Delete. Google shows nothing [3], so I'm guessing its a hoax --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Numbers are not years, they need to exist AND be useful for something. Deizio 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Isn't this basically patent nonsense? Ronabop 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Ray[edit]

Non-notable, unverified and possible hoax article that is also unbalanced and violates WP:AUTO. Delete Ardenn 00:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I really don't think you needed all those templates on the page though. Just the factual accuracy one or the NPOV would have sufficed. If the author wants to show us how notable he is, please indicate the book ISBNs. A google for the name makes it look like he does exist and is a poet, but all the books look like they were published by minor publishing houses. - Hahnchen 00:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Further input from other users, and from Wayne himself have caused me to change my mind over this article. - Hahnchen 22:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is no different than any other poet or writers page, I can see a couple of items that look pompous but I have edited them out. You might as well delete all the poets in all the lists because they all contain relevent information on the persons accomplishments. Who is saying it is a HOAX?? All information is true. What is unvarifiable? Where is the material used in the accusations. Are you going to delete my other articles?? I am not tooting my own horn but I am known in Canadian poetry circles, I have made a contribution to Canadian poetry and Canadian "Small Press Publishing" and No to deleting me or any other poet just cause you dont know them. I will continue to try and learn wiki principles and editing practice and I DO rework pompous or personal pages to appear more neutral.

  There is such a thing in both Canada and the USA calles Small Press Publishing. Not all poets start out or continue with major publishing houses. Local and regional Small Press Publishers can publish famous and not so well known poets and authors. As far as the ISBN's I rarely noticed them in other authors pages, however I have taken note and mentioned that listing a book without the publishers name is the same as just making it up and writing anything down, THAT is unverifiable. I have been endeavouring to update and add many Canadian Publishers so the wiki links are there. Personally I never think of the ISBN in verification because the name of the publisher is usually listed and I know many of them. WayneRay 00:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

• Comment For what it's worth, my local academic library has five of Ray's books. CJCurrie 00:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually frown upon when people write article about themselves. All the claims of notability are seriously weakened. Additionally, the objectivity is questionned. And this is not just a Wikipedia policy, judges recuse themselves when a family member is involved, scientists have others review their papers before publications. Tony Bruguier 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Additional Comment - I just went through all my Canadian Poets pages (see my WayneRay 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay page) that I have written or edited and they all read like mine, most have Small Press publishers and some have major Canadian Publishers. We all know them and the names and the editors etc, You don't, and they are classed as minor? Hardly any had ISBN numbers attached and several had no publisher at all. They are still notable in the Canadian literary scene. Are you or someone going to delete them all??? I can go through the lists of American poets (etc) and I bet I will find the same thing. WayneRay 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
  • Comment - I've not written any articles on authors, but if you type out the ISBN then Wikipedia will automatically link to sources for that book like ISBN 0590353403, it just makes it easier to check. I'm however, not too sure on Wikipedia's guidelines on ISBN numbers in authors articles. And don't take this nomination too harshly, let's wait to see how it pans out, I may change my vote. - Hahnchen 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:BIO. Amazon shows nothing to prove he's notable enough[4] and Google only shows 640 results [5]. However on the bright side, I did enjoy his "I Came Across A Field One Day" poem, very well written --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you say *only* 640? Do you think 640 is small number of non-similiar results? What do you think is a sufficiently high number? --Rob 01:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Around 2,000 or higher results usually indicates notability. However, please remember that of these 640 unique results, not all of them are about Wayne Ray the poet. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you show me a link to a Google search which shows more then 1,000 *unique* results? I would be interested, because that would exceed Microsoft's unique hit count. --Rob 02:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, you got me there. I was advise by some other editors on AfD to use unique results instead of all results. But I guess we all make mistakes sometimes :)--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • [6] Has 4 billion hits, but google stops counting uniques at 917. Ronabop 02:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, tricky to verify importance and per the fact that even editors who might be notable should really resist the temptation to a) write about themselves, and b) go down the "If A is ok, why not B?" route. However, the template fest is totally unnecessary. Deizio 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete 230/1,430 google hits [7], borderline nn/vain. Ronabop 02:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:AUTO and too few google hit. Protection would be required too as author may recreate this (maybe if it get recreated, let's assume good faith for now) Tony Bruguier 02:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable per all the above. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. No books listed on Amazon and no ISBNs provided in the article are strong indicators of insufficient notability. It is unlikely that the subject's publications have the 5000+ audience that is usually required. Autobiography is not in itself a ground for deletion, but WP:AUTO contains very good advice: "If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later." dbtfz^talk 04:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep per recent changes and discussion (though I really wish editors would respect WP:AUTO). dbtfz^talk 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable author with large publication history. Kind of surprised at the delete votes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-known in Canadian small-press publishing; I agree the article needs improvement. The notability of poetry is inherently hard to judge in an age when even well-known poets sell very few copies; I would hate to think that this means poetry is inherently unencyclopedic or that a quick google equips one to judge its notability. There's also some history here: the nom's suggestion of hoax may seem bizarre, given that a quick google shows he exists. But in fact the same nominator was behind two failed AfDs for Chris Faiers two months ago; the second was opened ten minutes after the first was closed as no consensus ([8],[9]). Given that Ray and Faiers are close associates, this nomination has a bad smell. · rodii · 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This University of Toronto biography provides verifiable evidence of notability for mine.[10]. It shows him as winning a Canadian Author and Bookman price in 1989 and he seems to have been publishing poetry for over twenty years making him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Writing about yourself is generally bad, but it seems a mistake to delete an article, because the writer was blatant about it. He could have picked a different account name, and this probably would have been kept more easily. Note to User:WayneRay: I suggest you put back mention of the prize, which you removed (with sources, of course), and add in any other prize(s) you won (again, with sources). It's a little to late for modesty, and that kind of thing is needed to demonstrate notability. --Rob 05:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep assuming all of the above is in fact true. I would like the references to be stronger than they are but as is they are acceptable. rodii also raises a good point about the nominator. SorryGuy 05:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifiable. For great justice. 05:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above Jcuk 07:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some peoples notability criterions are getting ridiculously strong. Loom91 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Capitalistroadster, others. Samaritan 08:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't imagine that none of his poems have appeared in a publication with circulation of 5,000 or more. NoIdeaNick 10:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifiable as well as per Capitalistroadster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terence Ong (talk • contribs)
• Keep seems to pass WP:BIO, but needs careful monitoring per WP:AUTO. User:WayneRay defintely needs to step back from editing the article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to all Thanks for the positive and negative input. I took a look at 30 other Canadian poets in the List of Canadian Poets and theirs or most of the Small to Medium press published poets, have a similar article page to mine so why not delete all of those?? I shall endeavour to do a Google search on US and Canadian poets just to see what the counts are and put them beside the poets names. ALSO in regards to Amazon.com: As a publisher I was heavily involved in listing my app. 200 paper and electronic books but after 5 years deleted them all. The Canadian Poetry Association has its own electronic bookstore as does the League of Canadian Poets. Maybe I and others are staying Canadian! You might want to also try www.abebooks.com as well. I will add the ISBN's to the book lists as well as update the List of Canadian Poets ISBN's as there are very few listed there and on many US poets pages. And put back the award after I verify a link with the CAA. WayneRay 13:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
• Keep, notable author; concur with JzG's recommendation for User:WayneRay to step back a bit.  RasputinAXP  c 13:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. Add user page to Category:Notable Wikipedians. Agree with JzG as well. Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Notable local poet. Referred to by Guelphites as "THE London Poet". If this page were determined deletable based on WP:AUTO I would personally recreate the entry. User:celsby
• Keep Notable entry. Sure, it biolates WP:AUTO, but any bias created in such an article may be edited out by other editors and by using third party references. --Bob 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but Wayne Ray should let others take it from here. Mangojuice 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think others have established notability here, WayneRay should step back and take JzG's advice though.--Tollwutig 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly not a hoax Dlyons493 Talk 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:AUTO isn't supposed to be a death sentence for the article. The notability seems supportable. He should recuse himself as its major editor but no reason to delete it. Georgewilliamherbert 21:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Bororomir Wins
• Comment he continues even during this afd to violate WP:AUTO. Ardenn 01:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh noes! The spite in this one is strong. As GWH says, he should, ideally, recuse himself, but WP:AUTO is a guideline, not policy, and trying to improve articles is a good thing, even during AfD discussions. · rodii · 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF pardon my French Ardenn, BUT, didn't above users just tell me to update the page with references and ISBN numbers to verify the information. You really should give me examples instead of just criticism. There is way less information on almost the entire List of Canadian Poets and a few others US and foreighn ones I have been working on, why don't you go put a delete logo on all of them and then take a relax pill.Will someone other than myself and Ardenn please put the page in the correct tone, I will leave it alone for now. WayneRay 13:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Whether or not WayneRay follows WP:AUTO is irrelevant to this AfD. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --User:ElectricEye (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. TH 09:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Undecided after seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Toronto 93 Highland Ave. where it is alleged that User:WayneRay has written another vanity article and used a picture that does not have anything to do with the subject, with which he claims to be familiar. Smells like publicity seeking/hoaxing/vanity. I'll await User:WayneRay's response on this before I decide how to vote in this AfD. TH 09:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep, I'll be watching this page for a while but seems good faith to me. TH 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

93 Highland Yes, I had not finished writing and editing it, i saw, a paragraph that I was going to delete, while away this week on vacation. The last paragraph should have been opmmitted, the plant list one. Maybe it is just under the wrong heading, should be part of U of Toronto and I may have it linked under botanical gardens. Delete the whole thing if you like, I am not back for a week to do anything about it. There are three photos on the page actually and yes, that is the President's house photo for the University of Toronto.(wrong phot what happened to the one I put there ????? Thanks for the note and I will endeavour to correct things I missed, after I get back home. WayneRay 13:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

• Comment. This last discussion should probably go on the AfD page for 93 Highland. Looks to me more like a relatively inexperienced editor being enthusiastic about the possibilities of Wikipedia than vanity, though. · rodii · 14:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMF'NG[edit]

• Also nominated: The Kdrmns

This is not a notable webcomic, it's 40 strips can be found on Freewebs here. I'm also nominating the two stars of this hit webcomic The Kdrmns here as well. They also "champion" 2 videobloggers, which I'm nominating separately because they probably aren't connected to this non notable webcomic. This website is wholy non notable, a websearch for OMF'NG gives 90 links almost all of them unentirely related to this webcomic. These articles were written by a User:Dvdkdrmn, the author maybe? I don't know, but it makes no difference - Hahnchen 00:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete, does not appear to be notable. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 00:31 UTC
• Delete, the comic doesn't even have its own website --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn webcomic Deizio 01:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OMF'Delete Ronabop 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 05:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all webcomics unless syndicated in non-trivial treeware. Except Scott McCloud's. Just zis Guy you know? 08:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable -Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 09:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 11:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. --Bob 15:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Neutrality. — TKD::Talk 03:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Schlich[edit]

vanity piece by non-notable writer •Jim62sch• 00:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY. Nothing relevant on Amazon [11]--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity, no encyclopedic content, mainly a list of unreferenced magazine credits. Deizio 01:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. vain. Ronabop 02:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F. Spencer Hunley[edit]

touching story -- 3 hits •Jim62sch• 00:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nn vanity. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 00:30 UTC
• Comment - Look at this edit! Anyone understands what's going on here? (I could not verify anything about the older F. Spencer Hunley.) Lambiam^Talk 00:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm confused. The article was originally created about the older guy. But based on googling, everything about him is garbage. It is impossible to be an academic at that level, with published works, and a tenure as a university chancellor, and not show up on Google, but there's nothing there, not one single hit. There never was such a professor. Everything I can find that seems relevant points to a 19 or 20 year-old KC kid with autism who's active in Missouri politics. Was it a hoax and then someone else came along and repurposed the page to talk about the kid? Fan1967 01:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly. It is also possible that the anon editor and the creator of the page are the same person, perhaps who created an account specifically to create the article and then edited it as an anonymous IP. Either way, the original content seems to be a hoax and the current content is non-notable. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 01:40 UTC
  • Yes, it definitely looks like that. The page creator also created the original version of the Missouri Day article, which references the young FSH. A message I left on his talk page over a month ago asking for clarification was never answered. Delete, forth with this, forthwith! Lambiam^Talk 10:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nn, vain, and advocates practicing medicine without a license, too! Ronabop 02:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. --P199 04:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't diagnose yourself. It's a bad habit. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ronabop and Samir (The Scope). JIP | Talk 07:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. And as for the self-diagnosis... Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albums of xtina[edit]

Appears to be a copies of Christina Aguilera related articles, pasted into one. LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 00:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing good to redirect or merge --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, That's what a girl needs. Ronabop 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for every obvious reason imaginable (of which there are many). -- Kicking222 03:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christina Aguilera discography. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Terence Ong 11:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christina Aguilera discography. --Bob 15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. AndyZ _t 21:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redireft per above. — CJewell (talk to me) 05:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above, since it's possible that somebody will type "albums of xtina" into a search engine. Extraordinary Machine 18:08, 22 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. WP:CSD A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shibito[edit]

Maybe when they've played some gigs, been signed to a contract, released a few songs... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BAND. Nothing relevant on allmusic. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bandcruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under ((db-band)), per clear admission in article. Deizio 02:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wow, those violating WP:BAND usually have *some* evidence of actually playing, uhm, instruments! Ronabop 02:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Why is there even a vote on this? As other users have stated above, even the article's author admits that the band has no notability whatsoever. No songs + no concerts + no contract = no Wiki article. -- Kicking222 03:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete hasn't even played a show for god's sake!! Does it get more obvious than this? Grandmasterka 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per TBC. SorryGuy 05:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete--blue520 08:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 08:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedied. Clear db-band candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nornna[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)).

A videoblogger who uploaded loads of videos of her life on YouTube and then realised it was a bad idea and took them down. Googling her name brings back a number of blog posts about her, but is she notable? Are any of these blogs anywhere near a reliable source? Is Nornna anything else other than a footnote in YouTube's history or a lesson in why uploading every facet of your life for the men in suits is a bad idea? - Hahnchen 00:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just because it's pretty much over doesn't mean that they should take it down. It's really cool to find just about everything on Wikipedia and find out more info about. Plus, the pet rock was a fad that is over, but it's on here. tynews2001 07:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:V isn't bloody likely. Ronabop 02:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I would cite more but three WPs is more than enough. SorryGuy 06:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nornna youtube produces 18,800 ghits. Notable enough. Loom91 07:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 136 of which are unique hits, and the overwhelming majority of those are blog, Myspace and Livejournal entries. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn and vanity. --Terence Ong 11:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable and because the subject has clearly not yet done anything of merit. Just zis Guy you know? 13:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn vanity.  RasputinAXP  c 13:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!! Nornna is a hero to a lot of people, she was living her dream, until people started being over-critical over her.

Keep her, she is essential to YouTube.

• Comment: A "hero?" Based upon what? She seems to have been one of many hundreds of Webblips who become momentarily noticed on some site and just as swiftly vanish again. Three months from now there'll be some other flash-in-the-pan and "Nornna" will be long forgotten. But if YouTube thinks she's essential, I'm sure YouTube can supply a tribute page right on its own site. RGTraynor 17:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: vanity -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Must look for more info yet. Maybe keep it. Music Master

• Delete The fact that 99% of her videos have now been taken down virtually guarantees that in a few weeks/months, she will be all but forgotten and merely a footnote in the history of Youtube. She may have gained a following, but stop and think for a moment. Will this article be at all relevant a year from now? I think not. SteveJ2006 10:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She's just another nobody whos using the internet towards a weak attempt at fame and obviously just putting on an act to garner attention. The whole thing is just a phase that will die out by the summer. Overall, she doesn't deserve the attention shes getting.. Look at the more noteworthy articles in Wikipedia (Ghandi, Churchill, Einstein) and ask yourself if this Kid deserves to be alongside them. Somehow, I don't think so. Frequency24

• Delete This is nothing more than the exploitation of a mentally handicapped woman that doesn't understand that most of the people watching her videos are watching her out of some sick form of entertainment. If the New York Times and Time Magazine had done their homework, they would not have used her name in their articles. Now, if the bio is to stay on wikipedia, then it should be truthful and not sugarcoated, because while she is gaining "fame" from YouTube, it's a known fact that she is disturbed and is currently in therapy for having a sexual fascination with children.

• Delete WP:VANITY Don't most Wikipedia entries have factual citations or references? Just because she has a following from a bunch of children does not allow her to become part of this site. Remove this trash and lets never speak of her again.

• Weak Delete Not as convinced as the majority here, but the situation just seems like a minor fad which has died off fairly quickly and failed to leave much impact or notability.--Cini 17:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Exodus International. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 02:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Chambers[edit]

This article was created by its subject, Alan M Chambers, a new WP editor. He may have been trying to create a user page. There's virtually no content. There may be something over at the user's talk page that may be salvagable, but I'm not convinced it is notable enough. eaolson 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy to User:Alan M Chambers, then redirect the page to Exodus (organization) (as he seems to be leader of it)--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Boy can Wikipedia look forward to the inevitable POV wars at Exodus International. - Hahnchen 00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect sounds like a good option.--Larrybob 00:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect It appears that the user has added his bio to his new user talk pages. Redirect makes the most sense, despite concerns about edit wars. Ande B 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems fine to me. SorryGuy 06:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. If it cannot be expanded, redirect. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and redirect per TBC, which is what I would have done in the first place. No admin action necessary, just be bold :-) Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creatheism[edit]

Delete. 11 real Google hits; none on Google books; claims to have been "introduced in the early 21st century" - apparently introduced via Wikipedia. BD2412 T 00:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Awesome word though, I may start using it in ID discussions. "I'm a creathiest myself", awesome ridiculous phrase, because ID pushers don't really deserve rational conversation. - Hahnchen 00:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. By the way, sometimes, neologism does get populized with the help of Wikipedia (anyone remember the Gospel of Hermes incident?) --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a "neologism" that never even achieved any noticeable acceptance. It certainly does not warrant an entire article. If the initiator of this article feels strongly about the term perhaps he/she could find a proper place for it in the article for Matthew Fox, Creationism or other article concerned with ultimate, supernatural origins. Ande B 01:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism that never even got close to being on the radar. A theistic concept that sounds like "atheism" probably never had much of a chance. Fan1967 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable neologism. --Allen 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research or neologism. Gwernol 01:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete protocruft Deizio 02:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NFT Ronabop 03:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TBC. Surprise, surprise, he is just too good about WPs. SorryGuy 06:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NFT, WP:CRUFT, WP:NEO. --Terence Ong 11:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Just zis Guy you know? 13:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gwernol. 69.138.229.246 22:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Will (^E_@) T 06:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googolquinquagintiplex[edit]

• There they go again, creating articles for more huge numbers. Please delete. Georgia guy 00:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, another made-up large number --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is nonsensical as an article. Ande B 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Williamb 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with all other such apparently fake large numbers. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 01:41 UTC
• Delete, probably speedy as patent nonsense Deizio 02:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete WP:NFT,WP:SNOW Ronabop 03:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ivci[edit]

This is virtually advertising for a small, non-publicly listed company of no particular noteworthiness. Librarianofages 01:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete advertising Tony Bruguier 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising used to direct reader to corporate links. Ande B 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORP. SorryGuy 06:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete monograph of Anthonydelia (talk · contribs), no evidence of passing WP:CORP, spam. Just zis Guy you know? 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete small company, but there is a mention of Inc magazine has named the company to its Inc 500 list for 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. I'm not too sure though if Inc. 500 is considered well-known or important enough. AndyZ _t 22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 02:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akana Noto[edit]

Possible hoax article for a NN musician. Search on Yahoo! for "Akana" and "Macarthur Park" (allegedly the name of her most popular album) shows 4 hits, all of which are somehow mirrors of this site [12]. I couldn't find a IMDB listing for her either despite the allegation that her music is used for television sports themes. --Ataricodfish 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds like a hoax page. If not a hoax then not notable. Ande B 01:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:V Ronabop 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ronabop. SorryGuy 06:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Ronabop. ~ PseudoSudo 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Save, I know Akana Noto. She's been very influential in the new age music world. Please don't delete this article. I don't know why it isn't more prevalent on the internet, but i own all of her albums. She is very real and "notable." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.93.248 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Per Amazon.com, there are no hits for any of her products, despite the article listing an autobiography and over ten CDs. [13].--Ataricodfish 19:29, 22 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 Redwolf24 (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFEDI[edit]

Speedy deleted on 8 April, taken to Deletion review which upheld that "Unremarkable people or groups" does not apply to companies. This is a sub-stub that makes no claim to notability, so unless citations are provided that demonstrate this meets the guidelines for inclusion of companies I recommend deletion. brenneman^{L} 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CORP --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep but needs a lot of work. This is a governmentally formed associated entity in the UK. It may be noteworthy as a reflection of the perceived economic and political concerns that brought about its creation. Its methods of and effectiveness at meeting its mandate could be of interest to UK readers. That said, the BBC on-line news pages don't turn up a single entry for SFEDI on their search pages. Ande B 01:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, it doesn't seem to be a government formed entity, but more of an organization that works for the government--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are right, TBC, and I should have clicked through a few more links. But I don't know how different this entity is from SCORE, which has its own article. As it is now, the SFEDI article is rather worthless. I don't personally care if the article gets deleted but it seems to me to be more of a candidate for serious improvement than deletion. Ande B 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TBC. SorryGuy 06:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Improve. Having found some useful articles on other entities in the alphabet soup that is the British vocation qualifications industry, I created the article as a sort of placeholder, hoping that someone would add detail. I believe it is a noteworthy body, and will myself fill it out eventually, if no one better qualifed gets there first. Please be patient: Rome wasn't built in a day etc. The article should probably be under SFEDI's full name, with a redirect from "SFEDI", but I don't know how to do that.TobyJ 10:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although it is not obvious from the article, this is a company set up (and largely funded) by the UK Government to design standards for training in the small and medium enterprise sector. Its influence is out of all proportion to its size. Although it is not I think a QUANGO as such, it is pretty close. Just zis Guy you know? 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A very cursory run through UK Google under the full name turned up references for this outfit on the government's SBS site [14], the Scottish Parliament site [www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/x-enterprise/inquiries-01/lli-submissions/ell-038.pdf] , the BBC's website [www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1178057] , the London government website [www.londoncentrallsc.gov.uk/upload/lclsc-web/1-5%20Partners/PR06ESFLearner%20achievesSFEDIacceditation.pdf] among many others, and turns up over 500 unique G-hits. This is pretty solid, folks. RGTraynor 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Badly in need of improvement, but a stub is better than nothing and it seems pretty clearly notable to me based on the comments above. Keep.-Polotet 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I applied for the deletion review, and I am glad to know that the process works. My vote, however, is Delete per WP:CORP. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 02:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making Runescape money[edit]

Delete as original research and also because Wikipedia is not a game How-To guide. Was prod'ed but the prod notice was removed. Note that there is also a merge-to tag on this article, but I believe that all of the content is original research/How-To, so there is nothing to merge. Gwernol 01:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopaedic. Hyenaste 01:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic. — Deckiller 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as stated above, it's just original thought. The merge, of course, doesn't matter, as the article should (and probably will) be gone soon, anyway. -- Kicking222 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TBC. SorryGuy 06:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed. Socom49 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. AndyZ _t 22:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — CJewell (talk to me) 05:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as repost, apparently. Just zis Guy you know? 15:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Girl[edit]

• This title was on Afd once with a consensus to delete, but it got created again a few hours ago. Please delete. Georgia guy 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant (obviously a little girl is a girl at a young age)--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Girl. --Allen 01:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't even bother with a redirect. This is beginning to look like a page being created as an annoyance. It also appears to reflect nothing other than the writer's own personal definition. Ande B 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect. I know, that's an unusual vote, but it seems like the best solution. The page should certainly redirect to girl as it is a likely search term. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 01:44 UTC
• If this had a pop culture section with stuff like "Mike Myers played a character named Dieter in Sprockets who would pull out his shirt and pretend he had boobs while saying 'I'm as happy as a little girl'" it would be more difficult to delete this, unfortunately. Since it's a dicdef, delete it. Brian G. Crawford 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If necessary, redirect and protect. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This page is remarkably unnecessary, and in my view doesn't even deserve a redirect. --Kuronekoyama 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per what Kuronekoyama just said. dbtfz^talk 04:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Zero sharp 06:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This should be a Speedy as re-creation of deleted material, IIRC. I don't think a redirect to Girl is necessary or useful, and would perhaps discourage an actual article with this title (which there could be, someday, I think, if one gathered together references and shades of meaning etc.). However, if an article like this is created once again, then screw it, Redirect and Protect. Herostratus 06:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as ((db-repost)) candidate.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an obvious and non-expandable dictdef. The picture could be used somewhere, though. JIP | Talk 07:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as "no encyclopaedic significance"; also as quasi-blatant paed~ -- Simon Cursitor 08:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Speedy Delete per (aeropagitica).--blue520 08:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect these little girls, per Cuivi. Lambiam^Talk 10:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, per (aeropagitica). ~ PseudoSudo 10:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus Redwolf24 (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action Gamemaster[edit]

Non-notable vaporware console that was only announced, never actually developed. BackInBlack 01:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing notable about a product that never existed. Might be properly mentioned in the article about the corporation that failed to produce it, Active Enterprises. Ande B 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Vaporware from an obscure outfit that only came out with one mediocre product before the owners went off to sell cars instead? Derezz this puppy ... err, Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vaporware from minor manufacture of unlicensed games - I don't think it gets a lot less notable than that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have searched for information on this topic before. It might not be notable to you but it is to at least me. --ReptileLawyer 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The entry is encyclopedic, and could be the perfect article. History like this should be recored. Meta:Wiki is not paper McKay 23:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Excellent, well-researched article. Why on earth delete it? Richard W.M. Jones 08:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Active Enterprises with full honours. Kind of infamous "item" among people interested of game system history, but really, due to lack of evidence, it's just a ghost story, and not even a substantially creepy one at that. Can't possibly justify it's existence as a separate article unless something substantial shows up, like actual prototypes or something, but since the AE article is a bit short, it could use some meat. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable and well written. There are several unreleased or protoype consoles that have their own articles (such as the Sega Neptune) so I don't see why this cannot have its own article either.--Cini 17:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Redwolf24 (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Hendricks[edit]

No notability asserted. Fails WP:BIO. Possible vanity created by a user with one edit UnOrthodox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few weeks ago. Arbusto 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Arbusto 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs major work. The author has several books related to "Christian living" on Amazon and shows up on Google with a sufficient number of hits to look as if he has some following. Ande B 03:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets notability (people) for authors. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable. For great justice. 05:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. C'mon, one of his books is in the 6000s in Amazon's sales ranks, another is in the 5000s. I see that nom's edit history is heavily slanted towards smacking down Christian-related articles, but picking them apart for alleged inaccuracies works a heck of a lot better if we do some cursory research ourselves. There's no way I'm going to AfD an article (or vote to do so) unless I'm personally satisfied as to the non-notability of its subject, and doing so takes all of two minutes. RGTraynor 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two AfD's of articles started by new users without sources and notability conncted to the same seminary that has been repeatedly vandalized by a banned user is not "smacking down" any group. Arbusto 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, no, your contribution history is littered with slapping fraud tags, deleting doctorates issued by institutions whose bona fides of which you're not convinced, stripping links, adding Controversy & Criticism sections, so on and so forth ... thousands of such edits to Christian-themed articles; it's far from out of line to make such an inference. Of course no one can or should support banned vandals and puppetmasters, and I bear no love at all for the fundamentalist right, but no personal crusade to ring their chimes should override our obligation as editors to conduct fair, balanced research. Otherwise, their claims of vendetta would be justified. RGTraynor 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't "doctorates" if they come from an unaccredited school who does business by mail. And you bet Benny Hinn, Kulhman, ect. get fraud tags; no one can "raise the dead," heal the sick by waiving their hand, ect. And you bet someone with an unaccredited degree who claims they are Indiana Jones-like with Biblical relics without any academic support should get a "controversy and criticism section." If you think questioning Smith Wigglesworth's claim that he raised the dead (14 dead to be exact) is "smacking" a article down, that's your problem. Arbusto 00:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and someone turn it into an actual article...--Isotope23 17:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Badly in need of cleanup and expansion, but keep as a stub until someone provides that.-Polotet 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Expand. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 08:40, 22 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 Redwolf24 (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maddland[edit]

I think this webcomics is not notable enough to be included. Searches in google [15] [16] return too few hits. Tony Bruguier 01:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't even have its own website--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete - The Google links given above are actually incorrect as the name has been mispelt. However, a search for maddland with the correct spelling shows up nothing reliable, no reviews, no proper press and nothing to distinguish it from any of the sea of webcomics that exist out there. - Hahnchen 03:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I got a fair amount of hits from a correct search [17]. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 02:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Signals on a Land Raider[edit]

I do not think this webcomics is notable enough [18] to be on Wikipedia Tony Bruguier 02:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Warhammer 40,000-related deletions. -- Pak21 06:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all webcomics which are nbot sindicated in non-trivial freeware or Alexa top 5000. This is nowhere close. Just zis Guy you know? 10:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn webcomic.  RasputinAXP  c 13:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as another nn web-comic. --Hetar 19:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 23:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as patent nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 10:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja training[edit]

This belongs on a joke website, not Wikipedia. Valermos 02:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Do not redirect. A joke page, no useful information. There is already a legitimate Ninja article. Ande B 03:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NN. SorryGuy 06:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Total rubbish.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as garbage. JIP | Talk 07:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 02:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Bonus & Incentive[edit]

What is this? Neutrality^talk 02:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This may be good advice for someone considering enlisting, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like a page from an employee's handbook, not for an encyclopedia article. Also appears to be author's soapbox. Ande B 04:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally I does not matter if you delete this or not, however I rather see the information moved to another article if possible. The infomation in the article was in support of the following chart under G.I. Bill intitlements. However I will let popular vote decide upon it fate. Paul.Paquette
• Delete, violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, too little context, mostly just a link collection. JIP | Talk 07:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete w/o prejudice; no doubt a neutral and encyclopedic article could be written on this subject, but there is very little here other than a collection of links with brief editorializing. The links themselves might be worth merging somewhere. If an article is rewritten, it needs context showing it's about the USA. Smerdis of Tlön 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus Redwolf24 (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Room for Magic[edit]

Too few google hits [19] to be notable Tony Bruguier 02:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep This is a Keenspot comic, and it's by Count Your Sheep creator Adrian Ramos. The article needs serious fleshing, though. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This probably isn't going to be deleted, even given it's total lack of content. When websites like Able and Baker are undeletable purely because they belong to a Webcomics promotion collective Dayfree Press (their slogan is "Power in Numbers"), you're probably not going to be able to touch Keenspot comics, I haven't tried. I know an Alexa webrank of the hundreds of thousands and no media coverage other than the site it's hosted on would get normal websites deleted, webcomics are special, on Wikipedia anyway. - Hahnchen 05:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all webcomics not syndicated in non-trivial treeware. Possible merge to Adrian Ramos as part of a list of his minor comics, but this article has nothing to commend it. Just zis Guy you know? 10:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of Adrian Ramos's writing of it, in the same way we might keep a less notable band based on a more well-known artist's presence in it. Also, I'd like to ask Hanchen to consider that his comment here might read as a bit uncivil, and to try not to attack even by implication people who disagree with him.-Polotet 00:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC) ETA: and yes, article needs significant improvement, but I've always felt that an accurate stub is better than nothing.-Polotet 00:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well I still think there's a double standard on Wikipedia, as I mentioned in the comparison to a non-webcomic website. We are much more likely to keep the article on the webcomic, and yet ditch the website. But I didn't vote to delete the article because of its association with Adrian Ramos and Count Your Sheep, which has won lots of awards. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/44 Scotland Street, the author of that book is way more notable than Ramos, but it looks like that article will be deleted because of its lack of content. Wikipedians seem to believe that a webcomic is inherently more notable than other subjects, and that they should be treated with greater leniency. A website with an Alexa rank in the hundreds of thousands and no press outside of their own circle would be deleted, yet a webcomic probably won't be. Claiming that just by belonging to a webcomic collective like Keenspot or indeed the Dayfree Press as mentioned above is like claiming that all published books, all signed bands, every single TV episode is notable enough for an encyclopedia. And that's something I don't subscribe to. - Hahnchen 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My comment regarding your incivility was based on what felt to me like an assertion in your first comment that people voting keep on this article, and webcomic inclusionists in general, are hypocrites who simply pound in "keep" on webcomic AFDs without giving any thought to arguments for deletion. Your more recent comment is completely civil and, while I don't agree with it completely, does a much better job of getting me to understand your point of view. (And thanks for pointing me to that AFD, I hadn't seen it and think it's a clear keep).-Polotet 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable Keenspot webcomic, meets nontrivial publishing. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: At the end of the day it's still a webcomic, and Keenspot doesn't establish anything. --Hetar 01:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that it provides the bases for all of its comics passing WP:WEB. If they weren't at Keenspot, half the comics there could be validly deleted. -- Grev 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sign that this article meets WP:WEB. A brief mention in either Adrian Ramos and/or Keenspot articles may be appropriate, as per WP:WEB's "Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion." -- Dragonfiend 05:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, passing WP:WEB #3 isn't good enough anymore? Keep it. -- Grev 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're trying to make a case that No Room for Magic is "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators ..." you may want to mention which site and show evidence that this site is both well-known and independent of the creators, rather than just posting a rhetorical question. If you're speaking of Keenspot, Keenspot falls well outside of my definition of "well known." In other words, could you give more detail on your reasoning, please? -- Dragonfiend 18:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 02:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic Age[edit]

Lacking in encyclopedic content (lacking in content period). Clearly should not be a stand-alone article. Arch26 02:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be a proposed definition, not an encyclopedia topic. Ande B 02:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Kicking222 03:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Ande B.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 02:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rez rat[edit]

This article's only point is that it describes a piece of slang. It is not of encyclopedic quality, it does not follow style guidlines, and even if it IS relevant, it probably does not need to be its own article Arch26 02:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable neologism Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism that doesn't have many Google hits. -- Kicking222 03:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Slang definition, not an encyclopedia topic. Ande B 03:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete College slang Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a slang guide. JIP | Talk 07:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete uncited non-notable dictdef Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Relist separately Redwolf24 (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson[edit]

No, this isn't for the JT article himself, it's for the two sub-articles:

• A Modest Video Game Proposal
• Jack Thompson and video game players.

The Jack Thompson article was recently ripped apart and put under WP:OFFICE for having "unreliable sources." That has since been remedied by going to print sources. Given that the two sub-article also have primarily online (which have been determined as "unreliable") sources, they should be deleted before Jack Thompson tries to sues us again. Hbdragon88 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that Thompson is a prominent media figure, I believe that keeping Wikipedia's record of these incidents as a part of the information on Jack Thompson is important. Merging the sub-article into the main article would make sense, or any other relocation/cleanup of the information, so long as it is not removed for the sake of censorship.

Comment I think the articles should be nominated together because online sources are the backbone of the article, both are Jack Thompson-related, and are both sub-articles.

• Relist on AfD under the names of the actual articles up for deletion. --Metropolitan90 04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Modest Video Game Proposal, merge the video game players stuff back into Jack Thompson via the best way possible deemed by people working on the article there. That may mean keeping the sub-article, but I'd rather leave that one up to those who dealt with the WP:OFFICE action first hand. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per above. dbtfz^talk 04:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please Relist the individual sub-articles. Ande B 05:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please relist the articles you want. This is currently a useful disambiguation page including Jack Thompson, one of Australia's leading film actors. Capitalistroadster 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep these, but trim them to what has been verified. For great justice. 05:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Modest Video Game Proposal - Notable and verifiable. || Keep and cleanup Jack Thompson and video game players - Notable, but contains heaps of unreferenced material. || Relist AfDs named after articles which are not up for deletion. -- Synapse 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist AFDs are named after articles listed for deletion not for disambiguation pages. --Terence Ong 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Jack Thompson (attorney). At least one of these looks like a POV fork, and we have enough trouble keeping a lid on one article as it is. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and trim per Synapse. AnonEMouse 15:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as A modest video game proposal is a notable event, which has gotten quite a lot of fame in the gaming industry so it needs a keep where as Jack Thompson and Video Game Players could probably be remerged back into Jack Thompson (attorney). This has been discussed on the Jack Thompson talk page on occasion (now archived) with no real concensus as to what to do, because of the strict scrutiny Jack Thompson (attorney) is for verifiable sources. --Tollwutig 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist separately. Neither really hold water as standalone articles, IMO... but it is rather misleading to list them this way.--Isotope23 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist And what is with this automatic call for AfD every time someone thinks an article is substandard? Is it that hard to use the talk page to ask for a cleanup, or talk about what parts need to be redone? Jabrwock 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that no-one has used the talk pages for either article to discuss cleanup, citation requests, or reliability concerns. So why the sudden jump to AfD? Jabrwock 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can someone point me to where the policy of noting online resources as unreliable is located? I am aware of the rulings on blogs etcet, but is there any rule in place saying that online resources are inherently less reliable then print ones? I consider this quite the oddity concerning that wikipedia itself is striving to become a reliable online resource. SanderJK 20:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the guideline page Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which provides details about how various sources fit in the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Really, an item in an edited and peer-reviewed online publication is more authoritative for our purposes than one person's unchecked opinion that gets into a print magazine. It's just that online stuff has much more original un-fact-checked material compared to "reliable" material, so people overgeneralize. Barno 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see absolutely norhing wrong with Jack Thompson as is. It is a shining example of a redirect page McKay 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if McKay's opinion isn't sarcasm, this is a shining example of why this AfD needs to be split and relisted.--Isotope23 14:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 14:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Even if it IS sarcasm it is still a shining example of why this AfD needs to eb split and relisted.--Tollwutig 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both, but cleanup to get the same level of sources as the main article. VegaDark 23:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The amount of Jack Thompson articles at wikipedia is insane. We have literally everything the man that has ever done covered, including such none events such as Jack Thompson and the Jacob Robida murders. Gamers are Wikipedia and net savvy, and whereas that's great for projects like WP:CVG, it also means that we do have an asinine amount of detail on JT's hair colour changes and his thoughts on the new coldplay album. Some of this stuff does need to get deleted, but I really doubt it'll ever happen, the gaming community just won't let anything go. - Hahnchen 00:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not really a good reason for AfD though. A reason for cleanup, absolutely, but not for deletion. Jabrwock 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist separately. Otherwise, keep A Modest Video Game Proposal as a fairly significant event and merge the good bits of Jack Thompson and video game players into Jack's page but delete the article.-Polotet 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both, since they have important information about Thompson that would get lost under one article --Shaoken 01:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist separately would be perferable, but just in case keep A Modest Video Game Proposal, which is more or less notable enough to split off, but merge Jack Thompson and video game players into the main Jack Thompson (attorney) article. BryanG 03:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Will be notable in the future, especailly if video games are censored more. Notable now too. Gold Stur 04:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both Quite notable now, I see no reason why they should be put up for AFD and the way that they have been nominated is quite confusing in itself. Englishrose 11:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist would be good, though, what the hell, since we're on this AfD right now, Keep both (notable stuff, I think) and add more sources to the latter, which may be a merge candidate in long run. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Quite notable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, if the articles get merged with the main one then all the Gamepolitics stuff will be removed --Shaoken 05:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would. The reason for this is that because of wikipedia's verifiability and sources rule, gamepolitics.com counts as a blog and forums. Which are not verifiable sources by wiki rules. Now i could be tempted in a debate to consider the front page of gamepolitics.com as a news source not a blog, since it's written by multiple people on a professional level, and it's hard to draw the line between what constitutes a blog or an independent source. However anything that happens on the livejournal forums is 100% unacceptable unless a secondary news source reports on it. Wether that's fair or not is personal, but such are the rules. It does make some sense though, since already in the past bans have deleted slews of source material for the original article. SanderJK 11:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source, maybe? It's limited, but with it, you can at the very least mention his constant posting on there. --Shadow Hog 18:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Modest Proposal, Merge VG Players into main article, with some major trimming until we have everything sourced. --Shadow Hog 18:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danceflur Kriminalz[edit]

nn band, does not have a full length album yet ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By virtue of the band's web presence, I think it can be considered a web meme in addition to a band. Therefore, not having a full length album isn't necessarily a limitation. Moremoire 03:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually I changed my mind -- it should be marked for deletion. Sorry. Moremoire 08:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. NoIdeaNick 10:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete: No album, apparently no significant tour schedule, but they were featured in a possibly notable 2006 film festival [20]. It seems this still falls a tad shy of WP:MUSIC. -MrFizyx 16:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Moremoire's second comment. Stifle (talk) 00:02, 25 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 05:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roserklinik[edit]

Contested prod. This used to be promotional, but it's been cut down. It's a health clinic in Germany which doesn't give evidence of meeting WP:CORP. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No verified claims as to notability, either for location or staff members.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, article is a vanity page for the mentioned doctor (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sami Ahmad for reference); no attempt is made to assert notability of clinic. ~ PseudoSudo 10:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam Just zis Guy you know? 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this was prodded as reading like an advert, which was fixed, but it still doesn't have any claim to notability, other than a gastric surgeon who does double duty as PR firm —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The northern mage tower[edit]

Contested PROD. Fails to meet WP:WEB guidelines for the inclusion of Internet forums, and has no external verification of sources. None were evident from a web search, therefore this is likely to be unverifiable. Ziggurat 04:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails to meet WP:WEB criteria, no assertion of notability. -- The Anome 12:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we add a speedy delete category for clearly nn web forums? ;p-Polotet 00:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Pak21 12:13, 22 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 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgantowngamers[edit]

Violation of WP:WEB jmd

• Delete not a "violation", but non notable none the less ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 17:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB, and delete their image too. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 25 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 Redwolf24 (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullfrog power[edit]

Relevant policy: WP:CORP

Written as an advertisement, no indication of notability. Contested PROD. Sandstein 04:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Rewrite - This is definitely an advertisement, but it could be rewritten. I think it has potential. --Valermos 04:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising, NN. Ardenn 04:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus/Keep Redwolf24 (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Fine Action Comics[edit]

Not notable [21], doesn't even have its own web site. Tony Bruguier 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Merge into Double Fine Productions. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Deserves a footnote in the main article. I think there is enough in the main article already. - Hahnchen 05:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Double Fine- a company which, if I may say so, is quite fine. -- Kicking222 14:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no reason given for deletion. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the number of hits on Google is too low (about 350). Tony Bruguier 01:45, 25 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 Redwolf24 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retail therapy[edit]

Slang. Merge/redirect to compulsive behavior? Neutrality^talk 04:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge not redirect to compulsion as its own subsection. Keep. as per Capitalistroadster. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - neutrality has totally misunderstood this. It relates to the use of shopping (usually satirically) as therapy, not to a compulsion to shop. For great justice. 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Requires citations and/or references in order to be useful to a researcher.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reference. With a Google search for "retail therapy" coming up with 1,300,000 hits with the first returns from Forbes, the Guardian and the Melbourne Age, this is both notable and has verifiable sources. [22]Capitalistroadster 06:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have started adding references to the articles. It still needs further expansion but it is a start. Capitalistroadster 09:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:Capitalistroadster, well-known, even infamous, term--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Roadster. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep widely used term. Keep it factual and referenced, well worth an article. Just zis Guy you know? 15:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:Capitalistroadster MikesPlant 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:JzG --TH 22:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but is the intro POV? "improving" is stated but the first referenced title is "Shopping can make you depressed" --User:ElectricEye (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 18:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Place[edit]

Non notable [23] [24] [25] Tony Bruguier 04:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If someone can show me that this website actually attained some notability during its 2 year stint, I may reconsider. Because it looks like just one of many frankly interchangable webcomics on keenspace. - Hahnchen 04:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep: This comic rather cleverly integrated Keenspace's server troubles into its storyline. Doesn't unique story count for something? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn regardles of storyline. --Eivind^t@c 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no reason given for deletion. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article does not meet WP:WEB. Making critical judgments about storylines is something for reliable sources to do, not wikipedia. -- Dragonfiend 15:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 16:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Longitudinal_wave. HappyCamper 18:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longitudinal_electromagnetic_wave[edit]

factually incorrect. contradicted by Longitudinal_wave Rmcii 05:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Longitudinal_wave. Grafikm_fr 08:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge if necessary. No need for such a non-encyclopedic article. McKay 23:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange on Campus (Exonc)[edit]

You are incorrect sir, the site is merely FOUNDED in DC, that does not mean it is limited to DC. And whoa re you to determine if it is innovative? The idea of having online classifieds is surely not. The specific way in which it is done, it is not you who should be determining its innovative nature or not.

Is there some threshold level of success Wiki requires before Exonc could be relisted. For example, say the site was really successful, would it then be banned from explaining what it is then as well because it is of "marginal" interest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bornnomadic (talk • contribs) 23:56, April 20, 2006.

Non notable/Advert Appropriate Username 05:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "While the idea was not original...". No Alexa rank; not innovative, non-notable website of partial interest only to students in Wash. D.C., as per WP:WEB.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd take more seriously assertions that this wasn't a DC-only site if the front page didn't say "Built by GW to benefit GW," "GO COLONIALS!" and the Find Items function didn't have two options for location: George Washington University and "All DC Schools". (It's worth a look for a laugh, because the 'Others' section has among their thirteen whopping items for listed sale a box of half-eaten matzoh, a gold chain stolen from a professor, air, bongs, and a gangsta rap coloring book.) Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and RGTraynor. --Saforrest 19:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Aero, and RG. Joe 19:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all delete voters so far. Wikipedia is not the place for detailing recent non-notable innovations. Ansell 23:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6pm.com[edit]

Delete since Advertising material, hence not suitable fow wikipedia WP:NOT Vijrams 06:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Alexa rank of 12,217 makes this a non-notable website as per WP:WEB.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ad. Grafikm_fr 08:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advert, without prejudice to a proper article being recreated. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 25 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 12:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan E. Orlov[edit]

nn person, but I'm not sure Will (^E_@) T 06:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ivan I. Orlov widely cited in the works on non-classical logic, especially relevant (relevance) logic, being the forerunner of the latest, and paraconsistent logic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bazhan (talk • contribs), author of the article.

Shall we take that as a keep vote? -- RHaworth 07:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable work.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable work. Grafikm_fr 08:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable logician from pre-Internet Dlyons493 Talk 18:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and wikify. Very well known, notable. --MaNeMeBasat 10:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperstition[edit]

Non notable material Rainman420 06:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to have something of interest. Explanation, history, references.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons best stated in the first sentence: "Hyperstition is a neologism and portmanteau combining the words hyper and superstition." Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs some work, but I'd say it's notable enough to keep. --Valermos 21:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I hate neologisms that combine Greek and Latin. More importantly, it's just not notable: 231 unique Google hits, most of which are for pages that point to one blog. David Sneek 21:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research if nothing else. Denni ☯ 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism and original research Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the first four words of the article. See WP:NEO. However, don't say "non-notable", please. Stifle (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, blog material, vanity. "faith moves mountains" is not exactly a new concept and doesn't need a flurry of cheap neologisms. dab (ᛏ) 12:43, 25 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, but noted with slight inclination towards deletion. Also, move to Austrian Student Mission. HappyCamper 18:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Österreichische Studentenmission[edit]

Delete - Christian student organization with no claims of notability. Wickethewok 07:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is still in work - a couple of more things need to be added: history, organization background... Tomzi 07:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are thousands of Student clubs. Let's not create a page for all of them. jmd
  • This is exactly what I would expect from an encyclopedia. If I wanted to find information for christian movements in austria, if would search for it on wikipedia, i would find probably IFES and ÖSM. If i wouldn't find ÖSM, i would look for larger organisations, if i knew what to look for - like IFES, find the local movement in Austria - voila - i found the ÖSM, and all the background information on it :) Isn't that exactly the same way you would look for birds, trees, animals - everything that splits into sub or local species Tomzi 08:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if expanded. Grafikm_fr 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment this appears to be a national grouping rather than a society at an individual university. (I'm not voting as I'm a militant atheist and therefore biased). Average Earthman 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but for God's sake move to Austrian Student Mission. This is the English language Wikipedia. Smerdis of Tlön 19:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would like to see some numbers before anyone votes keep, as in, how many people are part of this organization? Wickethewok 19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless more evidence is provided of notability; otherwise rename to Austrian Student Mission as per Ihcoyc. --Saforrest 22:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since i created the page. This local christian movement exists already almost 40 years - notable?! Need to look up the details. It's a good idea to move it to Austrian Student Mission, and just redirect from 'Österreichische Studentenmission'. Tomzi 08:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - do you have any sources in English, so that editors here can verify its notability better? Or, if any editors here speak the language, thats good too. Wickethewok 08:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main site for the umbrella organisation is International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. There is not a lot on the ÖSM homepage since the site is organized by the students, maybe more at the homepage of local group in Vienna, but the website is in german, too. Our larger sister organisation in germany publishes a lot, but mostly in german de:Studentenmission in Deutschland (Student Mission in Germany). Even larger is UCCF, the movement in great britain. We have a lot of information, mostly history background aso, in written form (german :)). I will put the most important part in the article. Tomzi 08:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article is the German equivalent of UCCF and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. This might be further explained in the article; this might give some potential to the keeping of the article when expanded? SietskeEN 12:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, can't see how this group is important or special. Open to change, though. If kept, rename to English. Stifle (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. incog 01:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete unless actual indications of notability appear. It's a national organisation with (apparently) active branches in most Austrian universities, and would thus make a prima facie case for notability. The websites (I read German) have no info on the number of members, though, and the forum (of the Vienna branch) has 24 registered users. Also, there is no indication of any real-world impact (media mentions, etc.) and it has 453 Google hits. Not very indicative of notability, all this. Sandstein 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. HappyCamper 18:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'Thun[edit]

• Keep I can't believe that this is even being discussed. I am not a WoW player, however this character was mentioned in a forum by other people. I was glad I could find out about it here on wikipedia. WoW has a significant cultural identity and following, and being able to garner a bit of history on this character was enlightening to this non-player. So, deleting this would be subtracting from the knowledge about this increasingly important game, whether you play it or not. If it's burdensome to have this entry, it should be put in another article that could be redirected/found through search. This really should be a no-brainer. And this is coming from someone that doesn't play the game. anon 09:05 26 April 2006 (UTC).
• Delete: One of the "Gods" from World of Warcraft. He's not even physically in the game, although his eye does serve as a raid boss. I am recommending deletion as gamecruft. --Hetar 08:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with World of Warcraft. Grafikm_fr 08:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a regular contributor to that article, I feel its already more than sufficiently long, and doesn't need minutiae like this. WOWwiki [26] already has a more lengthy and more appropriate article on the subject. --Hetar 08:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, merging into World of Warcraft would be the wrong course of action. For being a "God" it's not that major of a character for such a broad article. Instead I say merge and redirect to Ahn'Qiraj, the dungeon where C'Thun is a boss. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense, changing my vote to merge and redirect. --Hetar 01:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as much as I love World of Warcraft, the cruft is getting obnoxious.--Isotope23 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, do we have an article on the Gods of World of Warcraft? There are apparently more than one. If we don't yet, move this there, and slightly edit the page to turn this into the first entry. Fans are going to make more of these; may as well deal with it. Smerdis of Tlön 19:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still support deletion, but Smerdis of Tlön's suggestion is a good one and a proactive way to deal with the inevitable.--Isotope23 19:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If the [[World of Warcraft article is too large and this god is too minor to justify inclusion in the main article, I think it would be better (and consistent with how WP:FICT handles characters and narrow topics in other types of fiction) to merge all WoWcruft articles to sub-articles such as Gods of World of Warcraft and Dungeons of World of Warcraft. I don't think that dungeons such as Ahn'Qiraj should have their own articles, as they have no relevance to non-WoW-player readers no matter how notable the game system is. Barno 20:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually there already is a Dungeons of World of Warcraft article at Instance (World of Warcraft). Right now it's just a chart with links to individual articles of the dungeons. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has some merit, but does need to be improved. I would also support a Merge With Ahn'Qiraj, but a delete is not necessary. McKay 23:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Ahn'Qiraj.-Polotet 00:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - or Merge if you want, a singular character with apparently zero back story as of yet should not have its own article. Every MMO has a good handful of god characters, and they really should not have their own articles. - Hahnchen 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, he does have much more backstory than is presented in this article. But I agree he's certainly not significant enough for his own article.-Polotet 01:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Warcraft is about as popular as some minor religions. If Shintoism or Baha'ism have individual pages devoted to minor gods, why not Warcraft? Even if everyone stopped playing Warcraft tomorrow and no other MMORPG ever came out, Warcraft would still be fascinating as a cultural artifact and worthy of research. In any case C'thun is in the game; the Eye is just the first stage of the raid encounter. There is more backstory to the character, as mentioned above; this article is merely incomplete. Marvelli
• Transwiki to WoWWiki. Stifle (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know nothing about WoW, but I used this article to understand one of my friends nicks in MSN Messenger. It is useful. -- DJ John 21:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.46.104.176 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 08:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Fuel[edit]

"Gay fuel" energy drink gets under 600 ghits. There are no reliable sources cited. It is discussed on YTMND (surprise surprise) but there is no reference on Snopes. I call hoax, failing that non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 08:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as NN and possible hoax.Undecided Grafikm_fr 08:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not sure why, but I get 90,500 hits for this on Google, not 600. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39283] [27] [28] [29] If this is a hoax, it sure is an elaborate one given that it is cited in the Detroit Metro Times and was recently being auctioned off on eBay. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You get fewer hits if you include the words energy drink. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the Clown-fearing one. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the above. I also get 95,000+ hits. It may be a hoax, but it's certainly notable. Badgerpatrol 15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction- Search ["Gay Fuel" energy drink] does indeed get only 606 hits. ["Gay Fuel"] gets 95,000+ however. Badgerpatrol 15:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand, notable enough. bbx 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non Notable. WP:NN Is this really notable? Gayfuel.com is owned by specialtyspirits.com who produced the homoerotic labeled Cabana Boy rum. It may be a real product. It seem to only be fuel for chuckling pundits, and bloggers. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, being from the D, I will say that Detroit Metro Times citing something isn't overwhelming evidence of notability. I'll spare you all my diatribe about how it actually used to be worthwhile reading material... Appears to have quite a few cites per Can't sleep, clown will eat me... just not sure if I consider those publications to meet WP:RS.--Isotope23 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn product from nn company. Does seem to exist though. Dlyons493 Talk 18:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't found any reviews of this product on the major beverage review sites (like BevNET). Also, in that BevNET category, there are a lot of energy drinks out there that have since been discontinued. I'm not sure if Gay Fuel's sales figures or longevity have been proven yet. I'm leaning toward delete on this one, but I'm not 100% convinced that it's non-notable. --Elkman - ^(talk) 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per clown and his recent additions/citations.--Andrew c 21:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. VegaDark 23:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. Brian G. Crawford 00:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above. How notable is this drink? The only reason I've heard of it is through Wikipedia's unusual articles. It was produced by some small bancrupt company which would no way be notable anyway, and so their funny little product isn't either. - Hahnchen 02:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not dreamt of in Hahnchen's philosophy so out it goes!Grace Note 05:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that even mean? Every ruddy drink isn't popular or notable, just like every supermarket product isn't worth having in an encylopedia nor is every drink. This drink is obviously produced by some random drinks company, is this even their flagship product? It's not like this is Ribena isn't it? So delete the thing. - Hahnchen 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means that a person who has not noted Hamlet cannot be counted on as a judge of what's notable. Every supermarket product is worth having an article on. What a fantastic concept! An encyclopaedia that contains every supermarket product. I'm glad to have the chance to work on something so ambitious, so wonderful. Grace Note 02:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep i've seen this product at clubs... its not a hoax.  ALKIVAR™ 20:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Would any packaged drink you could buy at a single bar be suitably notable? (Probably not) 100 bars? 100,000? (almost certainly yes) I honestly don't know about this one. Do we have any sales figures for it? Do we have articles on every microbrewery for example? I'm convinced this is not a hoax. Any proof that it's influenced anything though? The articles given verify that it exists, but not that it's notable "enough". Hence my question. Anyone already determined how many beverage articles we have total? ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "How notable is this drink?" A new low. Keep, obviously. Grace Note 02:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was that in reference to me? It seems a reasonable question. Some drink that someone canned 100 cans of on a lark and gave away to their friends presumably is not notable. Michelob presumably is. Somewhere in the middle is a dividing line. Where? 1 bar? 100 bars? 10,000 bars? And which side is this drink on? ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I drink it, I note it. End of discussion. Grace Note 05:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, realise that might be too cryptic. If there is a verifiable drink, it is "notable" is what I meant. Grace Note 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And no, it wasn't directed to you (I used quotes because it was a quote, see?): you are indulging in angels and pins. You'd save yourself a great deal of anxiety by taking a more pragmatic view. Grace Note 05:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think my view is fairly pragmatic, and I'm not at all anxious about it. But I'd like to ask you perhaps to consider being a bit less cryptic if you can (your comment was right below mine, after all so it certainly seemed like it possibly was directed at me) and perhaps not quite as sarcastic. "It's not dreamt of in Hahnchen's philosophy so out it goes!" as you said elsewhere just does not seem like it's adding a lot to this search for consensus, which turns on notability (I feel verifiability is satisified)... it's a legitimate question being asked. Show us how notable. How well does it sell? If it doesn't sell well, how much impact has it had in other ways? I'm coming around to "it's notable enough to merit a keep" but it's not because of your comments. I have found in the past that comments that might be perceived as combative undermine the case. People ask because they care. Even deletionists care. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you feel verifiability is satisfied, only you know why you're still arguing about it with me. You must surely know that I, and many others, simply will never agree that a thing needs to be your or Hahnchen's idea of "notable" before it gets an article written on it here. Given that, it comes down to whether you are able to muster up sufficient votes for deletion to convince an admin to delete it. The notion that a good argument wins over many, many votes is laughable. Anyone who has made a good argument for keeping an article that was subsequently deleted knows that. Grace Note 02:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - On further examination, it's notable enough to satisfy me. Would still like to see more sources though. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ALKIVAR. This crusade against YTMND and anything that has ever related to it must stop. Bubby the Tour G 19:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it exists only in your mind, the solution is for you to stop imaginign it - it will then go away :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Gay Fuel is actually very real. I haven't seen it myself, but [30] claims to be a distributor of the gay drink. Just look at these, eh, gay boys handing out samples here. [31] Not that I would actually drink it, but you know, gays would. I think we all need to take a big gulp of Gay Fuel right now. 6 pack for everybody. Bubby the Tour G 00:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yes, this drink was so popular that its original distributor, Specialty Drinks LLC are bancrupt. The only reason this is here is because people thought it was funny, not because its of any encyclopedic use. - Hahnchen 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unverifiable outside its own website. Need more reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Popularity" is not a requirement for inclusion in an encyclopedia aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. The subject is perfectly verifiable (through reliable sources, thank you) and we should, without question, be able to provide this information to the casually interested visitor. Silensor 04:00, 25 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. Shanel ^§ 04:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche casino[edit]

Delete. Advertisement for non-notable online casino [32] Feezo (Talk) 08:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is just shameless self promotion. It needs to go. --Monk of the highest order 02:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 00:09, 25 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 05:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danceflur Kriminalz[edit]

nn band, does not have a full length album yet ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By virtue of the band's web presence, I think it can be considered a web meme in addition to a band. Therefore, not having a full length album isn't necessarily a limitation. Moremoire 03:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually I changed my mind -- it should be marked for deletion. Sorry. Moremoire 08:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. NoIdeaNick 10:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete: No album, apparently no significant tour schedule, but they were featured in a possibly notable 2006 film festival [33]. It seems this still falls a tad shy of WP:MUSIC. -MrFizyx 16:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Moremoire's second comment. Stifle (talk) 00:02, 25 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 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US CMS Products[edit]

This is linked from Comparison of content management systems. We deleted Canadian CMS Products a while back because there was no evidence of market specificity; I think the same applies here (as per the Countries column, which clearly shows that many of these are not US-specific). In software, for English-language users anyway, it is more remarkable if a product does not originate in the US than if it does. Most of these are redlinks. I don't see what this adds to the parent article other than additional miantenance overhead and lots of weblinks to products without articles. Just zis Guy you know? 08:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: If the company is not-notable, a list of their products is even less so. --Hetar 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopaedic, i.e. material which you would not expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. HappyCamper 18:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regatta® Implementation: Preliminary phase and Regatta: adoption method[edit]

• Delete. Seems to be an ad original research for a non-notable [34], [35] trademarked business process. Feezo (Talk) 10:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Regatta (method), merge with Regatta: adoption method and rewrite. —Ruud 02:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Regatta (method), merge with Regatta: adoption method seems the best option as it is not an ad. —BenBeens 07:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• If not-delete then merge; otherwise delete as software/system manual -- either copyvio or should be. Simon Cursitor 14:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Queensland Cowboys History[edit]

There is no need for two pages that cover the North Queensland Cowboys. Furthermore, much of this material is unsuitable and some of it copyrighted.

• Merge relevant content to North Queensland Cowboys. Doesn't look like a second article is justified. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the North QLD Cowboys website. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The North Queensland Cowboys article already covers their history as comprehensively as you could wish for. Capitalistroadster 10:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Capitalistroadster. JPD (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Capitalistroadster. --Roisterer 14:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content and delete -ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote. I really can't tell what to do with this. The main article is not an unmanageable size, but there's nothing wrong with splitting it up either. I don't understand the duplication of effort - a cut-and-paste of the exising history section would have made for a better quality article. Peter Grey 04:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Capitalistroadster. Harro5 07:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Unconvinced of need to delete. Andjam 02:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dear god, I wonder how many other sportscruft pieces have proliferated thoughout Wikipedia.--cj | talk 06:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Capitalistroadster EMBaldwin 15:09, 27 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.